MacBook Pros in High Demand, Increased Mac Market Share?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Piper Jaffray analysts (http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/07/apple-computer-macbook-0307markets15.html?partner=yahootix) are recommending shares of Apple Computer, citing high demand for the MacBook Pro:

The analyst's checks also indicated that there is pent-up demand for the MacBook Pro -- 70% of the stores have a waiting list of MacBook Pro customers.

Meanwhile, Needham & Co analysts believev (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?home&NewsID=14042) that Apple has positioned itself for "massive growth in its market share".

Based on their online survey of college students, there has been a dramatic increase in possible switching from the Windows to Mac platform. One of the hurdles, appears the ease of which Macs could run Windows. According to their survey, if Apple were to make it easy for Macs to run Windows the number of students purchasing a Mac would double (24.7% to 44% in the survey).

The potential ability for the new Intel Macs to run Windows has drawn a lot of attention and controversy amongst Mac users.

[netb0y]

I'm still waiting for mine!

[chepistolas]

wahoo! 10 % market share!

I know so many of my collegues that would get an apple if its able to run Windows.

[BornAgainMac]

Good for both Apple and Microsoft. Apple should be the largest laptop / desktop vendor in the next 18 months.

Anyone use this program to run Windows on your MBP / iMac?
http://openosx.com/wintel/index.html

I don't hear much about it.

[wPod]

ive been wanting an MBP, and being able to run windows natively would only sweeten the deal. so much engineering design software i work with (such as AutoCAD) only works with windows. I hate it, but its true. running windows natively on apple hardware would be the most elegant solution to my dilemma of needing windows.

[abrooks]

Good for both Apple and Microsoft. Apple should be the largest laptop / desktop vendor in the next 18 months.

Not wanting to be negative or anything but Apple has a very very long way to go before it sell anywhere near as many computers as Dell.

[Littleodie914]

This is awesome news for Apple... Wish I had bought some of their shares back in the day! Maybe now isn't too late... :cool:

[UberMac]

:eek: 44 odd percent of college students! Crikey that would be rather impressive. Though I'm equally pressed by the 27% figure of college students! Well the sky's the limit I guess.

Probably next year Microsoft will be saying it would be nice to have a 10% market share!

[freeny]

Im definitely in the market for one but am waiting for at least one of my main apps to be binary. Every thing I use would be running on Rosetta currently.

[nicksoper]

I'd be intrested in running windows apps on a mac, even if they ran through a rossetta style system.

But isn't the fact that mac's can't run windows executables why macs dont get viruses, another factor in owning a mac.

Nick

[lord_flash]

1) Runs Windows properly (just in case Vista does really well and we're all sidelined. Come on, it's not impossible, even if it would be a bit sad.)
2) The model has been out long enough for things like the 15" PowerBook FW800's screen problem to be ironed out.
3) It looks cool.

So, one out of three so far (3), but sounds promising on the others.

[ErnieFrance4]

I switched my freshman year of college and since then most of my friends have as well. It is funny that once someone takes the plunge and people can see it in action how many of their friends will be getting them as well. More power to Apple. I would love to see my campus filled with Macs as opposed to lab after lab of crappy dells. I go to UGA and they just love buying dells and sticking them everywhere. I bought a laptop just so i wouldn't have to use them.

[macintel4me]

... According to their survey, if Apple were to make it easy for Macs to run Windows the number of students purchasing a Mac would double (24.7% to 44% in the survey). ...
Duh!!

[sunfast]

Running windows on a Mac is of no real interest to me, but I can totally understand how it'd be a real bonus for those who have no other option. An increase in marketshare is all good by me!

[mithras]

Tell me where the 30% of stores *without* a waitlist are, and I'll run to one! (Or are those merely the ones that haven't received any shipments yet?)

[godbout]

I personally do not want my mac to be able to dual boot windows. Not only is it inconvienent to have to reboot your system to use the one or two programs that are windows only but I feel that many users (especially people new to the mac) might end up with macs running just windows and not OS X, then why would vendors be pushed to write OS X programs?

What I would like to see is a WINE/VPC like app that would run at near native speeds. That way we get the apps without having to actually dual boot windows. Then the percentage of people that are using OS X will increase and software companies might think that it is worth creating native apps for the Mac. Maybe? I am not sure, but it is somthing that I have thought about.

[Stridder44]

... According to their survey, if Apple were to make it easy for Macs to run Windows the number of students purchasing a Mac would double (24.7% to 44% in the survey). ...



Im sorry, where are the idiots saying Apple won't be around in 10 years? The move to Intel was bad? Macs have no market share?

Everyday I read more and more about Macs doing insanely well, and it makes me smile.:)

[MrSmith]

The potential ability for the new Intel Macs to run Windows has drawn a lot of attention and controversy amongst Mac users.

Unless I'm missing the point, I don't understand why there should be any controversy. When I'm sitting in front of my cool iMac fondling my dock (ooh err missus :D ) it wouldn't bother me if millions of others were running Windows on their same machines. You can't have exclusivity and market share.

[Stella]

If OSX could run windows apps then companies would give up writing software for native OSX. We've seen this before with IBM OS2 - don't let history repeat itself.

( And yes, OS2, another OS that was better than windows, but then, that, is not a very hard feat to achieve ).

[MacAficionado]

Running Windows on a Mac defeats the purpose. That is up there, in the most retarded things to do list. Why can't people just get one of these great new HP's or Dells to continue running Windows?

I mean, I hope they purchase the Macs, but I also hope they use the OS that comes with it and realize just how superior it is to that ****** product from Microsoft.

[excalibur313]

Unless I'm missing the point, I don't understand why there should be any controversy. When I'm sitting in front of my cool iMac fondling my dock (ooh err missus :D ) it wouldn't bother me if millions of others were running Windows on their same machines. You can't have exclusivity and market share.

Unfortunately many Mac Fanboys are against "dirtying" up macs with Windows. Just wait I'm sure they will respond to this.

[m-dogg]

Once you get a taste of that OS X goodness, why would you even want to dual-boot into Windows?

[excalibur313]

Running Windows on a Mac defeats the purpose. That is up there, in the most retarded things to do list. Why can't people just get one of these great new HP's or Dells to continue running Windows?

I mean, I hope they purchase the Macs, but I also hope they use the OS that comes with it and realize just how superior it is to that ****** product from Microsoft.

The first step to converting them is to make them realize that they needed it. When I switched 3 years back it was quite a leap of faith to spend $3000 on an OS that I didn't know. If I would have had the option of installing windows I would have done it far sooner.

[edesignuk]

Once you get a taste of that OS X goodness, why would you even want to dual-boot into Windows?Sometimes, you just have to. It would be a HUGE selling point, even if Apple/Microsoft don't officially endorse it.

[budward]

I recently received my macbook from apple ( 2 days ago ) I used it for 30 minutes and it got so hot that it's not even useable. Maybe people that live in Canada ( Where it is cold ) won't notice it, but I live in Florida. I am also scared that my kids can get burned if they touch it.
The bottom is super hot, as is the left front where you would rest your hand while typing. I called Apple to return it and they told me that I selected the faster hardrive, in being so they wont return it.

I know other people are saying the same thing about the heat issue. Apple does not disclose this on the website in any obvious place. In my users manual that came with the MBP, it says the machine may get "Warm" with extended use. That is a total understatement! My MBP get's "Hot" almost right away. Also, I am a registered Apple Developer and work as a Linux Sys Admin. I am well aware of how much heat is acceptable. I have a feeling that Apple is going to have major problems with this in the near future..

Listed below is all my Apple hardware, so please don't think I don't know my Mac's. I am a mac lover! However, the macbook pro is unacceptable.

I have give Apple a formal request for a return/refund. If they don't I am wiling to investigate a Class Action Lawsuit, since I am not the only one complaining about this.

MBPRO 15/2.0 CTO
2.0GHz Intel Core Duo/256MB
1GB 667 DDR2- 1 SO-DIMM
100GB Serial ATA Drive@7200rpm
SuperDrive (DVD±RW/CD-RW)
BkLit Keyboard/Mac OS
Airport Extreme Card&BT

Also,
I have a PowerMac G5 dual 2.0, 2GB ram
Mac Mini 1.5 PPC running OpenBSD
PowerBook 12"

[BornAgainMac]

Dual-boot I think would be the wrong approach. Running Windows programs like running Classic programs on PPC Macs would be the right way to implement it.

[MrSmith]

Surely technology has a natural tendency towards compatibility. Like all cars use the same petrol. Sure, all cars are different, as can all hardware be. But if they're running the same software, that must be better. Ah, but the problem is, Windows is crap, you say.. So Apple continues to make red-hot machines and writes its own, better, version of Windows (although it wouldn't be called that, of course). There, monopoly avoided. We have a choice of hardware and software - the ability to balance quality and budget, if you like - but everything works together. Just like, on a smaller scale, all machines can run Quicktime. I would still buy Mac products if they were better. And if they weren't, I wouldn't.

My version of the future...

[Evangelion]

Once you get a taste of that OS X goodness, why would you even want to dual-boot into Windows?

Because some apps run on Windows only? Because someone might actually prefer Windows (or some other OS for that matter) over Mac OS?

[miketcool]

The reason doubles for switching due to the ease of running Windows? I thought Macs have easily run Windows for a few years now, its called Mac OS X.:p

[ekivemark]

I think some people are missing the point. In the real world those of us that love OS X still have to deal with clients and colleagues that run Windows applications. There are a lot of enterprises out there that have standardized on IE as their web browser and the entire Office suite + Project and Visio. The latter two apps in particular force the use of windows.

I don't believe there is a big demand for dual booting Windows on a mac. What I believe most people want is the ability to run a windows app as a window in OS X with the ability to copy and paste between those apps and their true OS X apps. Microsoft Office for OS X with Entourage provides 90% of the compatibility that is required in many companies.

What we need is a solution that virtualizes Windows inside OS X on the Intel platform, utilizing the underlying intel hardware to turbo charge the virtualization whereever possible. This will allow us to stay in OS X for 98% of what we do and run a virtualized windows applicaiton for the few things that absolutely require windows.

[ijimk]

Once you get a taste of that OS X goodness, why would you even want to dual-boot into Windows?
i would use windows to play some older games such as Icewind Dale 2 and Baldurs Gate 2 among some of my other RPG games i already own for windows.

[ewinemiller]

If OSX could run windows apps then companies would give up writing software for native OSX. We've seen this before with IBM OS2 - don't let history repeat itself.

( And yes, OS2, another OS that was better than windows, but then, that, is not a very hard feat to achieve ).

This is so totally wrong. The only reason OS/2 lasted as long as it did was because it could run Windows. Nobody was buying OS/2 for OS/2 they bought it because it was a better Windows. If it didn't have that going for it, it's market share would have been even worse.

Apple is not in the same position. They already have a large (fanatical) user base, the big companies have already made the investment to support the platform.

If the Macs could dual boot, or at least run windows very well via VPC or something similar, I believe it will increase Mac development. If Apple can build a machine that runs windows, linux, and osx, it will be irresistable to developers and will become the machine of choice.

In my small little market, the Macs are considered second class citizens because of the smaller market share. As a small developer investing in that second platform is very expensive. I've actually made quite a bit of money off my competitors by porting their stuff to the Mac and taking a cut because I did invest the time and money. If the incremental cost was only a Windows license to set up dual booting on your Mac that drops the price radically.

I suspect it's only a matter of time before XP or Vista is up and running on a Mac, but I really think Apple did a stupid thing by making it as hard as it is. Personally my replacement cycle for laptops is about up. I will be ordering a new laptop in the next 4-6 weeks. If the MBP was dual booting Windows, it would have been one, but it looks like it won't be so I'm going for the similar Acer and buying the cheapest mini I can get to support my Mactel customers.

[timswim78]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Piper Jaffray analysts (http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/07/apple-computer-macbook-0307markets15.html?partner=yahootix) are recommending shares of Apple Computer, citing high demand for the MacBook Pro:



Meanwhile, Needham & Co analysts believev (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?home&NewsID=14042) that Apple has positioned itself for "massive growth in its market share".

Based on their online survey of college students, there has been a dramatic increase in possible switching from the Windows to Mac platform. One of the hurdles, appears the ease of which Macs could run Windows. According to their survey, if Apple were to make it easy for Macs to run Windows the number of students purchasing a Mac would double (24.7% to 44% in the survey).

The potential ability for the new Intel Macs to run Windows has drawn a lot of attention and controversy amongst Mac users.

Of course demand is going to be high. It's currently the only Intel laptop that Apple offers.

[d_and_n5000]

Great! More marketshare can only be a good thing(unless you get into security, but let's not go there;)). Now, if we can get a dual-boot Windows & Mac OS X, I may be able to convince my parents to get an iMac to replace this Dell:D.

[Porchland]

Good for both Apple and Microsoft. Apple should be the largest laptop / desktop vendor in the next 18 months.

C'mon. Fastest growing maybe, but largest?

BTW, I feel guilty that I want a Mac that can switch to Microsoft XP/Vista -- and not in a buggy-and-slow-as-molassas-Virtual-PC sort of way -- at the touch of a button. Better yet, I'd rather like to bypass the OS altogether and have Microsoft XP/Vista apps run natively on my Mac.

Is that where this Intel switch is going? Windows-native apps on OS X?

[sfwalter]

I agree these Macbooks are hot! But I'm not going to return mine, luckily I use it at work at a desk and not on my lap.

scott.

[freeny]

I recently received my macbook from apple ( 2 days ago ) I used it for 30 minutes and it got so hot that it's not even useable. Maybe people that live in Canada ( Where it is cold ) won't notice it, but I live in Florida. I am also scared that my kids can get burned if they touch it.
The bottom is super hot, as is the left front where you would rest your hand while typing. I called Apple to return it and they told me that I selected the faster hardrive, in being so they wont return it.

If Apple doesnt take the return you could always work on getting rid of the kids.

[AndyR]

I want a MacBook Pro but can't get one as I already have a G4 mini and and XP box. I only ever use the XP box for my MCSE Training stuff (work), MS Money and a couple of apps that are Windows only (my speed camera software).

If I could get a VirtualApp software whioch just let me run windows apps standalone I'll sell the lot and get myself a Macbook Pro in a heartbeat!

[danielwsmithee]

I know this is no way a scientific survey of the people buying intel Macs, but everyone I personally know that has bought one which is quite a few has purchased them as their very first Mac. I'm sure the majority of them would love to run Windows in some way but they all switched because of OS X not just the stylish hardware as PC weenies would have you beleive.

While Windows does suck! Dual-booting is not optimal, but it would be fine to be able to run those very few programs that do not run on a Mac. I think being able to run Windows is fine as long as OS X is the default and is still developed at the rate it is now.

On another note I personally switched at college my sophmore year. Not that this is the reason I have switched but Apple has done a great job on campuses with Apple authorized resellers on most campuses, and huge support for Mac Users Groups on campuses around the country. Our MUG was huge, Apple regularly donated prizes like iPods and copies of OS X and other software to raffle off at events.

[radian23]

Anyone use this program to run Windows on your MBP / iMac?
http://openosx.com/wintel/index.html

I don't hear much about it.

I'm using an application called Q to emulate windows 2000 as we speak.

[budward]

The MacBook Pro's performance is outstanding! I am not taking that away from it. However, I bought a "Mobile Computer" because I travel a lot.
I can't use the MBP as a Mobile Computer, How can I with the heat it produces?
I am wondering if the 7200RPM HDD in mine even makes it that much hotter?

How can someone feasable use it one an airplane without making the people next to you uncomfortable?

How can I use it anyhere other than on a desk?

Wouldn't that mean it has become more of a desktop?

Seriously, My G5 powermac dual 2.0 does not even produce this much heat when I compile things for hours!

People, be objective. I am impressed with the amazing performance of the MBP, but seriously, wait and see what happens when these machines are out for awhile. The heat is going to cause major probems.

Also, many people are experiencing odd noises, and sensor failures already... I am just trying to let people know this so they can evaluate whether the MBP is for them or now. Quite frankly, if you are looking for a 'laptop' computer, the MBP is not for you. It is too hot to put on your lap. heh.

[timswim78]

I can say from experience that dual booting is not the preferred method of running multiple operating systems, in my opinion. If you want to or need to run more than one OS, it is better to have more than multiple computers, preferrably one computer for each OS, hooked up to a KVM switch.

Here are a few reasons that I don't like to dual boot:
- Sharing files can be a pain. It's very difficult to setup disk space that can be accessed (read and write) by different OS's on one computer. It is much easier and more reliable to share files between two computers over a network.
- It can be painfully slow to switch back and forth. If you need one OS for one application and another OS for another application, you don't want to have to wait for one OS to shutdown and another one to startup every time that you need an application.
- Dual booting can cripple your workflow. For example, if you are doing some video stuff that takes hours on a Mac, you don't want to have to wait for Final Cut Pro to finish that stuff so that you can boot up Windows to run your mapping software. Instead, you want to be able to switch to Windows and fire up ArcGIS right away.
- Backing up and restoring OS's can be a pain in a dual boot system. If you decide to reinstall or upgrade OS X or Windows, the paritioning and bootloader situations can get hairy, in a hurry.

[42gb]

I am eagerly waiting for a laptop that I can use to boot up Windows.

I don't like using Windows (surprise!), but I go to a law school that uses exam taking software that only works on a true Windows system.

It won't do for me to be able to emulate Windows, a la Virtual PC or Classic, because the software has to be able to reboot the machine and prevent you from using anything besides its word processor for the test.

They don't want us to be able to look at our notes or to IM each other during the test.

So, I have to find a PC to use for 2 weeks every semester. It's a real pain.

[kretzy]

Excellent news for Apple methinks. :)

I am a bit concerned about the many heat issues people are having with their MBPs. I was seriously considering getting one, but this makes me want to see if there will be any improvements in the Rev B. I think they should have left the cooling grills on the side - they weren't too obstructive, and yet managed to keep things a bit cooler.

[ccrandall77]

Running Windows on a Mac defeats the purpose. That is up there, in the most retarded things to do list. Why can't people just get one of these great new HP's or Dells to continue running Windows?

I mean, I hope they purchase the Macs, but I also hope they use the OS that comes with it and realize just how superior it is to that ****** product from Microsoft.

Because some of us require Windows for work!!! I don't want to have to go out and buy 2 machines... one for home and one for work. As it is now, I have a work laptop in addition to the 2 my household has. I don't need or want that extra laptop because it just gets in the way.

It would be much more convenient to have a single machine to do everything. If that means dual booting, so be it.... although I would prefer something like Rosetta that would run the apps at a reasonable speed, but certainly not as fast as a full native app. That would still give software companies reason to port their apps to OS X and it would allow people who are forced to use Windows to switch to Mac and OS X now.

[miketcool]

If Apple doesnt take the return you could always work on getting rid of the kids.

Simply hilarious!

[nostaws]

I love my macbook pro. I want to and will run OS X. But I have a windows app that I MUST use, but only for about 3 hours a week. I would really like to boot into windows for that app.

[alexstein]

Dual-boot I think would be the wrong approach. Running Windows programs like running Classic programs on PPC Macs would be the right way to implement it.


I totaly agree with you. I could care less to run windows on my machine it is just that I want to run those 2-3 apps I like that are windows based on my Mac.

[ccrandall77]

Has anyone tried running Windows XP or 2000 with QEMU on a Mactel machine? I have it on my Powerbook G4... the boot seems about as fast as VPC 7, but in converting my VPC 7 Win2000 VM to QEMU's format, it crashes when booting. I haven't had time yet to recreate a QEMU VM for Win2000 from scratch, yet.

I would be interested to see how QEMU runs on Mactel... w/o needing to emulate the CPU's instructions set and since the machines are inherently faster than the older G4s, I would think Windows running in QEMU might provide a viable alternative for those who want to dual boot.

[bigandy]

I have give Apple a formal request for a return/refund. If they don't I am wiling to investigate a Class Action Lawsuit, since I am not the only one complaining about this.

on what grounds? i'm sure that's all that's needed is another class action lawsuit on completely stupid grounds. yes, a laptop with a fast processor will get hot. yes, an ipod will get scratched. it's called logic.

it's like people that have taken legal action against cigarette companies after contracting health issues (cancer/whatever), because they've not adequately warned them, DESPITE the HUGE notice on the front of the packet saying "SMOKING CAUSES CANCER", "SMOKING KILLS" or something similar.

only in america. :rolleyes:

you know what? there's a thing called consumer rights. if you're unhappy with a product you have a right to return it. apple won't deny you that. mentioning lawsuits because something gets hot (come on, ovens can get really hot too, but nobody complains through the courts about them) is just naive.

[Leoff]

I'm shocked at all this "Windows on a Mac" crap.

Half of the experience of working on a Mac is the hardware, the other half is the software. The superiority of the Mac OS overwealms Windows in most areas.

The ONLY reason people want Windows on a Mac is because they want to use programs made for Windows. Put Windows on a Mac and kiss your reliability and security goodbye.

Why doesn't everyone concentrait on convincing the PROGRAMMERS to come up with some more programs for the Mac OS?

Windows on a Mac is like putting regular unleaded in a high-performance engine. Sure, it'll work, and everyone's happy because it's cheaper and easily available, but don't bitch when your engine suddenly starts sputtering and then dies.

[someninjamaster]

I seriously doubt that it would get hot enough to burn you. I have a dell xps laptop with a 3.4 ghz p4 ht. It gets very hot but not hot enough to burn my lap. So i dont think its something to build a fence around to keep your children safe.

[freeny]

Apple knows how to run Windows apps on the new Mac but dont want to be the ones who introduce it, It would be bad buisness. They are waiting for the hackers to crack it.

I wouldn't be surprised if they quietly leak the info to one lucky hacker to speed things up a bit.;)

[mark88]

I think it's kinda surprising the MBPs are in high demand. The prices are super high! and bearing in mind there's hardly any pro apps for intel yet.

[mark88]

I personally do not want my mac to be able to dual boot windows. Not only is it inconvienent to have to reboot your system to use the one or two programs that are windows only but I feel that many users (especially people new to the mac) might end up with macs running just windows and not OS X, then why would vendors be pushed to write OS X programs?


I doubt many people would buy expensive Apple hardware just to boot into Windows and not use OS X. There are many PC manufacturers who make equally sexy laptops.

[windmaomao]

Anyone use this program to run Windows on your MBP / iMac?
http://openosx.com/wintel/index.html

I don't hear much about it.

if you search around net, you'll find all angry customers and bad reviews. They made a false statement about "native" program. And the performance right now is far from native, but they promise that they'll improve it very soon in the future.

[Seasought]

According to their survey, if Apple were to make it easy for Macs to run Windows the number of students purchasing a Mac would double (24.7% to 44% in the survey).

The potential ability for the new Intel Macs to run Windows has drawn a lot of attention and controversy amongst Mac users.

I'm curious as to whether or not this will ever happen. It makes sense from many standpoints to allow this in one form or another. I can't help but think that Steve Jobs believes the Apple's OS to be so superior that allowing or advocating such a thing as using Windows on a Mac would be vulgar at best.

I could be wrong, but it feels like there's simply too much pride involved with this issue to allow it to take place. I would like it if the option was available to me but only because Windows is so entrenched in the world. If I had the option to break that stranglehold or dual boot, I'd gladly cut off the hydra's heads.

[mark88]

Running Windows on a Mac defeats the purpose. That is up there, in the most retarded things to do list. Why can't people just get one of these great new HP's or Dells to continue running Windows?

I mean, I hope they purchase the Macs, but I also hope they use the OS that comes with it and realize just how superior it is to that ****** product from Microsoft.

I can't believe people are so ignorant and just don't get it!

I have to use Windows for certain apps every single day for work. I like OS X better than windows. You're saying it's retarded because I can just buy a Dell along side my Mac. Do you really think I want two completely different computers under my desk???

jeez

[windmaomao]

to me, installing two os on one machines just doesn't work. It's very exciting to have them both but swithing back and forth is just lame.

I'm still waiting for the formal release of winehq and darwine. They should be the ideal solution eventually. :cool:

[blueflame]

I doubt many people would buy expensive Apple hardware just to boot into Windows and not use OS X. There are many PC manufacturers who make equally sexy laptops.
CHALLANGE!!!
ak

[budward]

Seriously, why run Windows on a Mac?

Are there not enough hardware manufactures that support Windows exclusively? Why people even run windows anymore is beyond me.

Remember the old, "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?" commercial?

It should be, "How man clicks does it take to remove a program from your computer?"

windows >> START > CONTROLPANEL > ADD/REMOVE PROGRAMS > PROGRAM NAME >> CLICK REMOVE >> CLICK ARE YOUR SURE >> YOU MUST REBOOT FOR THESE CHANGES TO TAKE EFFECT!


Total 6 clicks ( +too long of delay from rebooting)

apple os x >> FINDER > APPLICATIONS > DRAG-N-DROP TO TRASH

Total 3 clicks

This is only one point in too many to mention, as to why OS X is far more Superior than Windows.

Running Windows is like going inside of Mcdonalds to place an order!
Running OS X is express access thru the Drive-Thru!

Is it lunch yet?

[halse]

1. openosx is just a graphical user interface slapped on top of "Q"--you can get it for free http://www.kberg.ch/q/

2. many of the MBPs run hot at first since spotlight is indexing the disk-- did the heat problem continue??

[windmaomao]

I recently received my macbook from apple ( 2 days ago ) I used it for 30 minutes and it got so hot that it's not even useable. Maybe people that live in Canada ( Where it is cold ) won't notice it, but I live in Florida. I am also scared that my kids can get burned if they touch it.
The bottom is super hot, as is the left front where you would rest your hand while typing. I called Apple to return it and they told me that I selected the faster hardrive, in being so they wont return it.

try run temperature monitor and activity monitor(see which app is causing this issue; sometime bad website or bad app will burn your mac), if the video die around 50'C(sorry I don't use 'F), it should be fine. Don't run games, ex. any blizzard game, they're the killers, I usually just put a icebag underneath it if I plan to play game. I think the fan won't kick in before 50.

p.s I don't have macbook, the above just applys to my powerbook G4

[budward]

you know what? there's a thing called consumer rights. if you're unhappy with a product you have a right to return it. apple won't deny you that. mentioning lawsuits because something gets hot (come on, ovens can get really hot too, but nobody complains through the courts about them) is just naive.[/QUOTE]

Apple told me they refuse to take it back! They won't because I so called customized it by selecting the 7200RPM drive.

Duh? That is all I want to do is return it. The Class Action is mentioned because Apple refused me my "Comsumer Rights" as you call them.

Comparison of a Oven to a Computer? We'll I won't insult you.. you did a good enough job.

[Performa]

wahoo! 10 % market share!

I know so many of my collegues that would get an apple if its able to run Windows.


"An" apple is a fruit.

"Apple" is the computer company that makes "Macs".

[mark88]

windows >> START > CONTROLPANEL > ADD/REMOVE PROGRAMS > PROGRAM NAME >> CLICK REMOVE >> CLICK ARE YOUR SURE >> YOU MUST REBOOT FOR THESE CHANGES TO TAKE EFFECT!


Total 6 clicks ( +too long of delay from rebooting)

apple os x >> FINDER > APPLICATIONS > DRAG-N-DROP TO TRASH

Total 3 clicks



So so wrong!!!

START > PROGRAMS > [THE PROGRAM] > UNINSTALL most of the time. And you do not need to reboot

Besides, to say that every application on OS X can be uninstalled by simply deleting the app is totally wrong. Since using OS X I've noticed various methods required for uninstalling applications:

1. Just delete the app
2. Manually delete the app and it's related pref files
3. Run an uninstaller from the apps HELP menu
4. Run an uninstaller that's included in the apps Folder(ie, speed download)
5. Run an uninstaller that's contained within the apps installer(ie, Fireworks 8). This is by far the worst one as it means you have to keep the installer hanging around

To say removing applications is simply a case of deleting the app is not always the case.

[xtopher1974]

I switched my freshman year of college and since then most of my friends have as well. It is funny that once someone takes the plunge and people can see it in action how many of their friends will be getting them as well. More power to Apple. I would love to see my campus filled with Macs as opposed to lab after lab of crappy dells. I go to UGA and they just love buying dells and sticking them everywhere. I bought a laptop just so i wouldn't have to use them.

Ah yes. College life. I remember at U.Va. when the only Mac labs were deep in the bowels of the Ed School and not even available 24-hours a day (like almost all the other labs), which basically meant I only used the PCs to access gopher servers at use-nets and stuff us old people use to use to get information. Everything else I did at home on Mac Classic II.

[Ace25]

I personally do not want my mac to be able to dual boot windows. Not only is it inconvienent to have to reboot your system to use the one or two programs that are windows only but I feel that many users (especially people new to the mac) might end up with macs running just windows and not OS X, then why would vendors be pushed to write OS X programs?
about.

I completely agree. I think mac software would become increasingly harder to find. Soon Macs would just turn into beautiful machines that just run Windows Vista and it's programs.

[AUBPsych]

I switched my freshman year of college and since then most of my friends have as well. It is funny that once someone takes the plunge and people can see it in action how many of their friends will be getting them as well. More power to Apple. I would love to see my campus filled with Macs as opposed to lab after lab of crappy dells. I go to UGA and they just love buying dells and sticking them everywhere. I bought a laptop just so i wouldn't have to use them.

My boyfriend is going to UGA (oh noes - he dates an Auburn girl!), and I won't let him settle for those crappy Dells there. The same thing happened to me as far as making the switch over at Auburn...all of the sudden, friends started showing up at Panera with Macs.

[peharri]

There are three major options, two of which, at this stage, are "not working".

Option 1 is to run Windows in an emulator like VMWare. This is already possible on PowerPC machines, and the speed is okay for "serious" apps on faster PowerPC based machines. It's not terribly desirable as most of us have no great liking of putting entire desktops inside windows, and full screen seems like the worst of all worlds - it's slower than the real thing, but you can't "run" Mac apps (well, you can, but they're not accessable while VMWare/etc are up, so they might as well not be running.)

Option 2 is to run Windows as a seperate operating system. This will be possible eventually on Intel based machines, but isn't today, despite the best efforts of thousands of hackers (in the positive sense: Woz, not Mitnick) across the world. This one has various implications:

- If a user spends a lot of time in Windows, they'll probably migrate there permanently (because that's what the rest of the world uses), whereas if they spend a lot of time in Mac OS X, they'll probably still occasionally boot into Windows to run the app that's only available in Windows because that's what the rest of the world uses.
- OS X is unavailable while Windows is running, it's an either/or, and the switch isn't painless. Unreal Tournament runs better in OS 9 on my PowerBook than it (the Carbon version) does under OS X, but I rarely boot into OS 9. Lose all my browser tabs? Close all my terminal sessions? Just to play a game?
- On the positive note, Windows is running as fast as it can, and is 100% compatable with all software that runs on that hardware. This is the only practical option that runs games, for instance.

3. An Windows API for Mac OS X

This is already under development, though you'll probably need to use it with X11. It's called WINE (http://www.winehq.org). In concept, it's not far different from Classic. The API implementation maintains windows (just as Classic's windows looked unrelated to Aqua), and the GUI looks similar to Windows. The major issue with this approach is compatability. WINE's developers are continually playing catch up. Some of this is alleviated by the fact WINE can use a real Windows installation for the majority of the APIs if one is available, but you have to be able to install Windows to begin with to make this work.

For some types of app, the programs will run at near full speed compared to option 2. For others, the programs will not run at all, or will crawl. While some progress was done adapting Windows games to the platform by Transgaming, the entire notion you have to adapt the games should tell you how compatable this is as an option. And if you thought OS 9 apps looked a little out of place under Classic, just think how ugly Windows apps will look under OS X, with their menus at the top of each window, for instance. Windows is document centric, not application centric like OS X, and this will also make integrating the two grating for end-users.

Leaving that side, the major consequences of this approach (which is going to happen) are:

- Smaller shops will see little value in porting their apps to two platforms if their app written for one runs "acceptably" under the other.
- Switchers will find that only some of their existing Windows apps run under their new Macs, and will be disappointed.
- But users will generally have less incentive to run Windows as a seperate operating system on their computers.

All three options will be available in the near future. The first is ready now, with varying degrees of usability (the person who thinks Office only uses 1% of CPU because, er, that's what it uses when idling, will probably find BOCHS on a 266MHz G3 fine for their needs *snort*); the second will almost certainly be available in a form blessed by Microsoft once Vista comes out, and the third is being worked on and, to a certain extent, I'm surprised it's not out already - but it's far from ideal.

The other wildcard with all of this is .NET. As time goes by, more and more Microsoft software will be written for the .NET platform, a supposedly platform independent high-level API inspired by the Java system. While Mono, a free-software implementation of .NET, is available today, it's X11 dependent and any app running under it will appear to be butt-ugly under Mac OS X, just as with those using Wine. However, .NET is high-level enough (like Java), for it to be reasonable to suggest a native OS X version of Mono might actually run .NET apps so they integrate better with the UI. Like Java apps, they'll always have quirks, but, well, I don't know about you, but the majority of Java programs I see running under OS X are acceptable, and there's no reason to think the same will not be true of .NET.

That doesn't affect things today that much. In five years though, it may make a world of difference.

[windmaomao]

on what grounds? i'm sure that's all that's needed is another class action lawsuit on completely stupid grounds. yes, a laptop with a fast processor will get hot. yes, an ipod will get scratched. it's called logic.

it's like people that have taken legal action against cigarette companies after contracting health issues (cancer/whatever), because they've not adequately warned them, DESPITE the HUGE notice on the front of the packet saying "SMOKING CAUSES CANCER", "SMOKING KILLS" or something similar.

only in america. :rolleyes:

you know what? there's a thing called consumer rights. if you're unhappy with a product you have a right to return it. apple won't deny you that. mentioning lawsuits because something gets hot (come on, ovens can get really hot too, but nobody complains through the courts about them) is just naive.

come on, seriously you never used laptop in a regular bases, did you? A hot laptop is not a good 'lap' 'top'; you don't put a cooking pan on your lap. Another example, how about a hot spicy super powerful PDA. I think you get the idea.

[PubGuy]

Too hot? I ran mine for 2 hours last night on my lap and it wasn't any different from my rev. A Titanium Powerbook (G4-400). I've got no problem using the standard MacBook Pro 2G Hz system.

As for windows, I also am using Q -- wow! its faster than VPC on my desktop system...an its free!!! I've loaded both a Windows 2K pro image and Windows XP pro image and they are both a lot more responsive than VPC has been. It'll even be faster when the virtualization patch is finished.

[timswim78]

Seriously, why run Windows on a Mac?

Are there not enough hardware manufactures that support Windows exclusively? Why people even run windows anymore is beyond me.

Remember the old, "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?" commercial?

It should be, "How man clicks does it take to remove a program from your computer?"

windows >> START > CONTROLPANEL > ADD/REMOVE PROGRAMS > PROGRAM NAME >> CLICK REMOVE >> CLICK ARE YOUR SURE >> YOU MUST REBOOT FOR THESE CHANGES TO TAKE EFFECT!


Total 6 clicks ( +too long of delay from rebooting)

apple os x >> FINDER > APPLICATIONS > DRAG-N-DROP TO TRASH

Total 3 clicks

This is only one point in too many to mention, as to why OS X is far more Superior than Windows.

Running Windows is like going inside of Mcdonalds to place an order!
Running OS X is express access thru the Drive-Thru!

Is it lunch yet?


+Empty Trash +Are you sure? = 5 clicks
+ not knowing if the whole application is really gone = priceless

[Rocketman]

Once you get a taste of that OS X goodness, why would you even want to dual-boot into Windows?

Some people NEED to run apps ONLY available for Winblows. One example is Autocad.

One COULD just buy two computers, but if there was a system Apple implements to run flavors of windows along side OSX one could bypass Autodesk's failure to port to OSX.

Many "critical" applications have the same limitation.

Heck, some run on DOS :-)

Show me how to run --APPLE-- Mac Draw on OSX!

Rocketman

[Lucky736]

Tell me where the 30% of stores *without* a waitlist are, and I'll run to one! (Or are those merely the ones that haven't received any shipments yet?)

Many CompUSA's have both available, I know 3+ in this area with them in stock right now.

[windmaomao]

I think it's kinda surprising the MBPs are in high demand. The prices are super high! and bearing in mind there's hardly any pro apps for intel yet.
I am suprised too, but if you thinking about how all the crazy people here flames anyone which just happen to drop a line against mac, then it's not a surprise. :D

[sushi]

wahoo! 10 % market share!

I know so many of my collegues that would get an apple if its able to run Windows.
To be able to effectively and easily run both Mac OS X and Winders 2K/XP on the same desktop/laptop would be fantastic!

This I'm sure would cause many fence sitters to jump to the Mac side.

Hope we see it soon.

[mark88]

I am suprised too, but if you thinking about how all the crazy people here flames anyone which just happen to drop a line against mac, then it's not a surprise. :D

High Prices, No Pro Apps, reported screen Problems, reported noise problems, Rev A....

All those things kept my money from leaving my pocket.

[(L)]

I'd be intrested in running windows apps on a mac, even if they ran through a rossetta style system.

But isn't the fact that mac's can't run windows executables why macs dont get viruses, another factor in owning a mac.

Nick

Well, I kinda disagree with this sort of info. Right, 44% and it'll stop there? Once it gets to that point, give 1, 2 years max for the Mac OS to be so widespread that people quit having the mental block of Windows compatibility...since schools etc will start becoming Mac-friendly...then the workplace, though perhaps much slower. 44%? Reach that and the Mac will push Windows hard, probably get past 50% easily if Apple can get it to 44%. I mean, that's a perfect side-by-side comparison on equal hardware and everything...people will buy Macs because of OS X being better than Windows, not because it can do both. Then start dropping the price to a point others cannot easily copy as you gain market share....that'd be so neat.

[windmaomao]

Seriously, why run Windows on a Mac?

Are there not enough hardware manufactures that support Windows exclusively? Why people even run windows anymore is beyond me.

Remember the old, "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?" commercial?

It should be, "How man clicks does it take to remove a program from your computer?"

windows >> START > CONTROLPANEL > ADD/REMOVE PROGRAMS > PROGRAM NAME >> CLICK REMOVE >> CLICK ARE YOUR SURE >> YOU MUST REBOOT FOR THESE CHANGES TO TAKE EFFECT!


Total 6 clicks ( +too long of delay from rebooting)

apple os x >> FINDER > APPLICATIONS > DRAG-N-DROP TO TRASH

Total 3 clicks

This is only one point in too many to mention, as to why OS X is far more Superior than Windows.

Running Windows is like going inside of Mcdonalds to place an order!
Running OS X is express access thru the Drive-Thru!

Is it lunch yet?

hi, sometime, it's not who the best, it's about who did it first. Don't ever call your boss moron just because of him still sticking with windows for no reasons. People don't like to change, if they want, they want to change a bit at a time.
besides, personally I don't understand why so many ppl hate microsoft that much, who used mac from the day one here? I mean count after you born. seriously, no pc, well ... life probably could be better ;)

[sushi]

Probably next year Microsoft will be saying it would be nice to have a 10% market share!
Realize that you are being sarcastic, but this is great news for Microsoft as well.

For every Mac sold that the individual wants to legitimately run Windows is another Winders sale for them.

Apple and Microsoft both win.

[janstett]

I would love to see my campus filled with Macs as opposed to lab after lab of crappy dells. I go to UGA and they just love buying dells and sticking them everywhere. I bought a laptop just so i wouldn't have to use them.

Funny, back in the day Apple had a near monopoly in the education market, everybody bought Apple II machines lab after lab. In fact, it quite ticked me off because back then there were several major vendors -- PC, TRS-80, Commodore, Atari, etc, and I didn't like that they picked Apple to represent the entire market, which it did not. Apple got quite lazy and complacent thanks in part to this captive market (kind of like the domestic auto makers with the rental car fleets).

I'm curious to know where they got their figures, probably from a campus with an Apple store.

[Marx55]

Make this and we will place hunderds on our University computing rooms:

- Boots and natively runs Mac OS X, Linux and Windows.

As simple as that! Besides, millions of people around the world will purchase such universal machine. Apple market share will move from 3% to 25% in three years.

And developers will continue to make Mac OS X software because once people use Mac OS X they will never return to the awkward virus-filled and cumbersome Windoze!

[sushi]

I'd be intrested in running windows apps on a mac, even if they ran through a rossetta style system.
Rossetta is not an issue for me.

What I suspect, is that there are many long time Mac users who still use Classic apps. For me, that will be the big conversion to only using X apps.

Eventually I need to ween myself off of Classic. Still use it for many things (WordProcessing, E-mail, some games, etc.).

[Twijit]

you know what? there's a thing called consumer rights. if you're unhappy with a product you have a right to return it. apple won't deny you that. mentioning lawsuits because something gets hot (come on, ovens can get really hot too, but nobody complains through the courts about them) is just naive.

Apple told me they refuse to take it back! They won't because I so called customized it by selecting the 7200RPM drive.

Duh? That is all I want to do is return it. The Class Action is mentioned because Apple refused me my "Comsumer Rights" as you call them.

Comparison of a Oven to a Computer? We'll I won't insult you.. you did a good enough job.

he is right though..laptops get hot. And any fool on the planet should assume that the MBP will get nice and toasty.

[mark88]

I'm not interested in dual boot at all.

The prospect of Darwine and VPC8 are far more interesting. I want everything in one place within a couple of clicks of each other. Having to reboot and load windows for me would be alot worse than running a dual setup with mac/pc and a KVM.

[janstett]

Everyday I read more and more about Macs doing insanely well, and it makes me smile.:)

I have to question your definition of "insanely well", since all the Mac has is a beachhead, a toe-hold in the market. Holding on in the face of the Windows juggernaught and surviving is, I suppose, successful. But how long can they hold out? Do you want the 5% stalemate to persist forever? It's like holding your finger in the dyke. As soon as you get tired the floodwaters come.

Don't get me wrong, I own 2 1/2 macs. Apple is prospering in its cubbyhole. But it isn't doing "insanely well".

Back on subject, I'm eagerly awaiting dual-boot. Having been around Macs in the business world, there are just apps they can't run that businesses need. Just in my case, I need MS Project and dozens of other tools that don't exist on the Mac. I'd like to be able to use the Mac the 90% of the time I can and have dual boot for the other 10% -- those times when I'd have to go and get a 2nd laptop or defer to someone with a PC.

[sushi]

Dual-boot I think would be the wrong approach. Running Windows programs like running Classic programs on PPC Macs would be the right way to implement it.
I can see both ways.

Personally I want to be able to dual boot to a x86 OS.

However, I would imagine that Microsoft will create a much faster VPC which will be great for running other x86 OSes. For them, it is a win win situation.

[brepublican]

This debate is getting lame. Dual booting wont be possible on Intel Macs. Not now, not ever. Over Steve's dead body. Live with it. If you need to use Windows apps every single day (like me and almost every other mac user) get a Windows desktop. Period.

Its a stupid excuse to say I use this and that every day so I need to dual boot. Bogus. So does everyone else. Get over it. Gosh. If you love Windows so much get a friggin Windows box. Frick on a stick!

[Twijit]

hi, sometime, it's not who the best, it's about who did it first. Don't ever call your boss moron just because of him still sticking with windows for no reasons. People don't like to change, if they want, they want to change a bit at a time.
besides, personally I don't understand why so many ppl hate microsoft that much, who used mac from the day one here? I mean count after you born. seriously, no pc, well ... life probably could be better ;)

Micrsoft is why we hate microsoft..I used windows for years and switched to mac about 6 years ago..and after using only OS9!! I realized what I'd been missing...but most of all realized that it could have been done better and faster and more secure and Microsoft had either willfully not tried hard enough to create a better system or even worse were too stupid and lazy to do better...****** Gates!

[schatten]

The KEY reason not to run Windows on a Mac or (even worse) run Windows software in Mac OSX, is because that damages Apple's position with software vendors.

I mean, why should Adobe make Photoshop for Mac OSX if you could just use the Windows version on your Mac (either by booting to Windows, or running it within OSX)? Why would MS continue to make MS Office for Mac OSX if you can run the Windows version on your Mac?

That's what happened to IBM's OS/2. Do you remember OS/2? It could run Windows applications. Nobody developed OS/2 Apps. Now it's gone.

That's what worries me; not this "dirtying the Mac by running Windows on it" nonsense.

[(L)]

a law school that uses exam taking software that only works on a true Windows system.

...is one that fails to recognize its endorsement of a commercial product. You have to buy your own computer, but it MUST run the software we chose for the majority, since we don't care that there are other ways or that those who bought computers more viable for other work (that is, Macs) will need to spend more money. I mean, we're a law school, right? We know there's no law against disregarding minorities at our school, so long as it's about something like computers and not race/people.

Rant over

"only works on a true Windows system..." maybe I've always had a fake Windows system, since nothing I have "only works"...each of my software "only works poorly or not at all".... Lol.

[diegofcam]

This will encourage windows people to buy a MAC. They will use both operating systems for a while, but in the end they will keep using os X more and more and eventually get rid of Windows. Just Imagine a day were Windows and Microsoft Internet Explorer do not longer exist !.

[sushi]

That's what happened to IBM's OS/2. Do you remember OS/2? It could run Windows applications. Nobody developed OS/2 Apps. Now it's gone.
You might want to dig a little deeper into OS/2 development and Microsofts roll in it.

Once you get a taste of that OS X goodness, why would you even want to dual-boot into Windows?
Because you have no choice in that you must run some windows apps.

Mac is fine for everything else, but some cases you must have a PC to accomplish your job.

By having a dual boot, or a fast VPC, one can carry one laptop vice two...

...or only the PC! Arg!

[peharri]

This debate is getting lame. Dual booting wont be possible on Intel Macs. Not now, not ever. Over Steve's dead body. Live with it. If you need to use Windows apps every single day (like me and almost every other mac user) get a Windows desktop. Period.

Its a stupid excuse to say I use this and that every day so I need to dual boot. Bogus. So does everyone else. Get over it. Gosh. If you love Windows so much get a friggin Windows box. Frick on a stick!

Ahem (http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+aligns+with+Intel/2100-1014_3-5733756.html)

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

Apple has no objection whatsoever to people running Windows on their Macs, so unless we're to interpret your comment as merely being against dual booting, that is, the concept of having multiple operating systems installed on the same hard drive (and I'll be interested in hearing your logic), I don't think the signs suggest Jobs would object at all.

[janstett]

This is so totally wrong. The only reason OS/2 lasted as long as it did was because it could run Windows. Nobody was buying OS/2 for OS/2 they bought it because it was a better Windows. If it didn't have that going for it, it's market share would have been even worse.
I have to chime in here. Not only was I an avid OS/2 user/fanatic, I worked at IBM as an intern during the OS/2 2.0 release.

People were buying OS/2 for OS/2 in the business world, in the 1.x days. Windows 3.x support was added in late in the development cycle, once they saw Windows 3.0 taking off. Much like the case the Mac has been through with the 68k->PPC, OSX, and Intel transitions, it gave the DOS/Windows compatability as an option but it was always preferable to have a native app. Yes, it added value by offering true multitasking and virtual machine protection. But the best way to go was to get a native application.

Where Apple is caught in the same position as OS/2 is this: By making your operating system a superset of another (what IBM tried with OS/2 vis-a-vie DOS/Windows), then yes you do get the benefit of running the other guy's applications PLUS your own applications. However, you get caught in two traps:

(1) You are not in control of the platform you are encapsulating. IBM did not control what Microsoft did with Windows. So MS came out with Windows 3.1 and their applications started "requiring" features in it, breaking OS/2 compatibility; and then Windows 95, which OS/2 could not handle and fizzled out. The problem is the platform you're trying to be compatible with is always moving. You end up reacting to the other guy's changes with significan lag time.

(2) Application vendors will not write native applications. In the case of OS/2, why would software vendor X bother to write an OS/2 native version of their application when the Windows version works on OS/2? The developers look at it like this: I can write one version that services 95% of the market and can run under a virtual machine on the remaining 5%; or I can write TWO versions with the second hitting a very very small portion of the market. What do you think they're going to do?

IMO Apple IS caught in this trap w.r.t. Windows. Let's face it, the fact that applications are missing on the Mac is why those who want to dual boot are interested in it. Even Microsoft doesn't port all of its large applications to the Mac. Many vendors don't.

The idea of having an OS is to get people to write applications for it. This is one of the fronts on which the Mac has lost, it's always going to come 2nd to the larger Windows market. You said so yourself.

But I think Apple does have a trump card that gets them out of these traps. Yellow box. Get developers to write "Mac applications" that also happen to work on Windows. Get 100% of the market with one application build. It also capitalizes on MS's relative complacence in the compiler market as of late, if Apple can offer superior development tools.

[(L)]

You might want to dig a little deeper into OS/2 development and Microsofts roll in it.

Still, the point that developers would have to be encouraged to continue writing software for both OS's makes sense. Ultimately, I think Jobs has it figured out. Don't encourage/discourage it, hope that Windows will be a you'd-if-you-had-to addition to the Mac, possible but out of your way. That way, people that truly want Mac will switch and then get Windows separately, though of course this cuts down the number of switchers based on price. The plus is that you can combat Windows's i-can't-imagine-using-anything-else with the same for Mac, rather than why-not-both? If Apple chose to make Windows readily and totally available, well, that would just kinda reek for the future of Macs. Here's a really stupid analogy - say you have a Canon printer that normally uses Canon ink...well, what if another company makes it possible to use Third Party Ink in all its inkiness, even if Canon despises Third Party Ink Co for being foolish and the Ink is not that great? Canon wouldn't ship advertisements for TP Ink with its printer, but if TP Ink is popular enough to turn some people away from Canon, they might not keep it from getting into the printer. They can hope that the consumer can compare between the two and make a smart choice...if not, a necessary choice.

[sushi]

Show me how to run --APPLE-- Mac Draw on OSX!
Try to run it in Classic.

If it runs under system 9, is should work okay.

[ctachme]

I agree that dual-booting isn't as good as some type of compatibilty layer... but only if that compatiblity layer is a lot better than classic, because, frankly, classic sucks.

If someone can give me a compatibilty layer with 100% functionality and 90%-100% speed... plus 100% native video card support... I'll jump on it in a second. But if they think they can get away with emulating the video card like VPC does now... I'm just going to dual boot.

There is one reason, I want Windows on my Mac: to play my Windows games. If some fancy compatablity layer can't give me virually native performance, than forget it.

[fba199]

I'm glad that the Apple Store I bought mines from didn't have a waiting list. Just kept on calling and finally got a positive response.

This is my first Mac and I didn't switch from PC to Mac, I just work with both of them. I still use the PC for Photoshop and all those other programs that run slow on my Macbook Pro. Though, I use my Macbook over the G5s we have at school... haha! I love this thing!

One reason I would want to have Windows on my Macbook, so I can run Adobe products and Flash. They are workable, but still runs slow. If Adobe were to come out with a universal binary, my PC would turn into a TIVO and gaming machine.

[peharri]

I agree that dual-booting isn't as good as some type of compatibilty layer... but only if that compatiblity layer is a lot better than classic, because, frankly, classic sucks.

If someone can give me a compatibilty layer with 100% functionality and 90%-100% speed... plus 100% native video card support... I'll jump on it in a second. But if they think they can get away with emulating the video card like VPC does now... I'm just going to dual boot.

There is one reason, I want Windows on my Mac: to play my Windows games. If some fancy compatablity layer can't give me virually native performance, than forget it.

At this stage, the only compatability layer that exists is Darwine (http://darwine.opendarwin.org/download.php), and it's not considered ready for prime-time yet. Even if it was, it's a port of Wine, and relies heavily upon X11. You'll get native performance for some apps, but playing Windows games will be more hit and miss. Anything that requires DirectX, for example, is probably going to be substantially slower than it would be under Windows.

[windmaomao]

Ahem (http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+aligns+with+Intel/2100-1014_3-5733756.html)

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

Apple has no objection whatsoever to people running Windows on their Macs, so unless we're to interpret your comment as merely being against dual booting, that is, the concept of having multiple operating systems installed on the same hard drive (and I'll be interested in hearing your logic), I don't think the signs suggest Jobs would object at all.
oh come on, you still believe that ? that was too old to mention, read some latest news.

[tzookster]

Once you get a taste of that OS X goodness, why would you even want to dual-boot into Windows?

-- In a while, Windows be reduced to a widget on your dock or wherever you will like to keep it. For Posthumous nostalgic irony or Powerpoint.

--A while later, all the MacPC users will be ditching OSX for the OS explosion from the East. Sony & Samsung turning OSX into a widget you can hang on your fridge. For Posthumous nostalgic irony or Windows widgets.

--Meanwhile forgetting what your computer looks like when you wake up. You ask for the curtains to open & let in the light. The curtains open & feed the room with light, the window has a little opaque Apple logo in the corner.

[CaptainCaveMann]

Why would you want to run windows on a mac? Isnt that the whole point of switching? To get away from windows. People are totally missing the point of owning a mac in the first place. :rolleyes:

[peharri]

oh come on, you still believe that ? that was too old to mention, read some latest news.

Yes I do still believe it. There's no reason to believe that Apple's position has changed. If that was their policy nine months ago, it's hard to see what's different today that would have meant they'd do a 180.

I seriously doubt you can point at a single authoritative article that implies Apple has a single problem with people running Windows on their Macs.

[Krevnik]

But I think Apple does have a trump card that gets them out of these traps. Yellow box. Get developers to write "Mac applications" that also happen to work on Windows. Get 100% of the market with one application build. It also capitalizes on MS's relative complacence in the compiler market as of late, if Apple can offer superior development tools.

This /may/ be true... especially for those who might be interested in the growth that Apple is achieving. However, .NET has a lot of force behind it right now, and allows you to hit mobile devices, and the desktop. I would say that it would be difficult if they went head-to-head with .NET. The thing is, XCode still has growth ahead of it, while VS is a mature product. So in the end, I don't see Apple swaying over many developers who weren't already interested in multi-platform development with Yellow Box. So it might just wind up negating the trap.

[Krevnik]

oh come on, you still believe that ? that was too old to mention, read some latest news.

If you understood the latest news... it isn't Apple trying to make it impossible, it is Apple supporting what they need to run OS X, without going out of their way to ensure it works with Windows.

The problems booting Vista are actually a mixture of Apple's EFI not having support for booting from UDF CD/DVD discs, and Vista being incapable of fully booting on 32-bit EFI at the moment.

[brepublican]

Ahem (http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+aligns+with+Intel/2100-1014_3-5733756.html)

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

Apple has no objection whatsoever to people running Windows on their Macs, so unless we're to interpret your comment as merely being against dual booting, that is, the concept of having multiple operating systems installed on the same hard drive (and I'll be interested in hearing your logic), I don't think the signs suggest Jobs would object at all.
I just clarified that. There is a HUGE difference between merely running Windows on the new x86 Intel Macs and dual booting. And its not going to happen.

[Craigy]

I'm using an application called Q to emulate windows 2000 as we speak.
I've been trying to get win2k to run on Q for ages, both on my G5 and MacBook Pro - got it to install but can't get win2k service packs or SQL server enterprise manager to install (my ultimate aim). Guess I'm going to have to wait for VPC8!

My MacBook Pro runs warm / hot too. but it was -5 here yesterday and it kept me toasty!

[miketcool]

I've got some eggs here. the powerbook is in the car. i was going to make an omelet on my way home

I have noticed my PowerBook casing being curiously nonstick...

[jdechko]

It's good to see the Mac doing so well. I just hope that they're in good supply when I'm finally able to buy one. Until then... :(

[bigandy]

Seriously, why run Windows on a Mac?

Because some people HAVE to run Windows. And if you're going to run it on something, having one box to use Windows AND MacOS, a Mac is one helluva lot better than a grey/black/red/green/chunder coloured PC.

read the thread, and you'll see the same answer, 25 or more times. :rolleyes:

[ScottB]

I don't have an opinion on the amount of people buying mac hardware, but more people running OSX is an issue for me. I see increasing market share as a threat to my security as it will make me more of a target to malware.

[mark88]

I just clarified that. There is a HUGE difference between merely running Windows on the new x86 Intel Macs and dual booting. And its not going to happen.

You said

"Dual booting wont be possible on Intel Macs. Not now, not ever."

then you said

"I meant officially sanctioned by Apple Computers Inc. Never..."

and now the above.

The fact is you will be able to boot Windows at some point. You will be able to run Windows within Virtual PC inside OSX. You will be able to run Windows apps from within OS X via a WINE port etc. As has been proven already.

Keep saying "it will never happen" till your blue in the face.

[CaptainCaveMann]

Because some people HAVE to run Windows. And if you're going to run it on something, having one box to use Windows AND MacOS, a Mac is one helluva lot better than a grey/black/red/green/chunder coloured PC.

read the thread, and you'll see the same answer, 25 or more times. :rolleyes:

So lets hear why you HAVE to run windows?

[mark88]

Can we set some sort of rule that whenever there is a discussion on running Windows on Intels Mac, or running Windows apps on OS X that people who just don't understand why you would want to do such a thing just NOT POST?

It has been explaimed a million times why people would want to do it, so why keep asking the same question over and over?

[CaptainCaveMann]

Can we set some sort of rule that whenever there is a discussion on running Windows on Intels Mac, or running Windows apps on OS X that people who just don't understand why you would want to do such a thing just NOT POST?

It has been explaimed a million times why people would want to do it, so why keep asking the same question over and over?

Im not asking why people would want to do it. Im asking why do you HAVE to do it. Thats what was said. :rolleyes:

[brepublican]

Keep saying "it will never happen" till your blue in the face.
I dont understand how my argument is not clear. Apparently you can run Windows on an x86 Mac. Not the same as dual booting. To the best of my knowledge, you cant. And you wont ever be able to.
It has been explaimed a million times why people would want to do it, so why keep asking the same question over and over?
Because as we have said, the reasons being given are total BS. All bogus. Yeah you need to use Windows every single day. As does almost every other mac user. So? Buy a PC. You've lived so far, you'll be fine. Gosh.

[Stella]

Your deluding yourself.

If OSX could run windows apps, then there is no incentive for a native OSX version.

Economics.

This is so totally wrong. The only reason OS/2 lasted as long as it did was because it could run Windows. Nobody was buying OS/2 for OS/2 they bought it because it was a better Windows. If it didn't have that going for it, it's market share would have been even worse.

Apple is not in the same position. They already have a large (fanatical) user base, the big companies have already made the investment to support the platform.

If the Macs could dual boot, or at least run windows very well via VPC or something similar, I believe it will increase Mac development. If Apple can build a machine that runs windows, linux, and osx, it will be irresistable to developers and will become the machine of choice.

In my small little market, the Macs are considered second class citizens because of the smaller market share. As a small developer investing in that second platform is very expensive. I've actually made quite a bit of money off my competitors by porting their stuff to the Mac and taking a cut because I did invest the time and money. If the incremental cost was only a Windows license to set up dual booting on your Mac that drops the price radically.

I suspect it's only a matter of time before XP or Vista is up and running on a Mac, but I really think Apple did a stupid thing by making it as hard as it is. Personally my replacement cycle for laptops is about up. I will be ordering a new laptop in the next 4-6 weeks. If the MBP was dual booting Windows, it would have been one, but it looks like it won't be so I'm going for the similar Acer and buying the cheapest mini I can get to support my Mactel customers.

[plinden]

What I would like to see is a WINE/VPC like app that would run at near native speeds. That way we get the apps without having to actually dual boot windows.
Like this (http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/vptech/)? That's what I would like to see for my iMac, not necessarily for Windows, but I'd like a virualized Linux install. Although I have some older games that I can't play now (Civ's I - III, Sim City 4 and MOHAA)

[StoneWolf]

So lets hear why you HAVE to run windows?

Some of my university classes require that you use Visual Studio in some of your programming assignments. Students would rather buy 1 computer instead of 2.

Just to reiterate what this survey said: Most of my friends are considering buying a new laptop within the next year or so. Of those friends, ALL of them are leaning towards Apple. Heck, less than a year ago I got a Thinkpad and now I want an Apple laptop.

[mark88]

I dont understand how my argument is not clear. Apparently you can run Windows on an x86 Mac. Not the same as dual booting. To the best of my knowledge, you cant. And you wont ever be able to.

You need to explain yourself, How is having a dual boot of OSX and Windows not the same as running Windows on an Intel Mac?

Honestly, you make no sense at all...

[brepublican]

Your deluding yourself.

If OSX could run windows apps, then there is no incentive for a native OSX version.

Economics.
Exactly. Dual booting would almost certainly spell the end for the Mac OS, since software makers would only issue Windows versions. It seems people who are advocating dual booting would just love to see this happen.

[maxterpiece]

DESPITE the HUGE notice on the front of the packet saying "SMOKING CAUSES CANCER", "SMOKING KILLS" or something similar.

only in america. :rolleyes:

Actually in the US cigarette packs don't have the same warning as in the UK. The warning is wordier, more oblique, smaller, and less visible on the pack (it's on the side of the box).

The warnings say different things, but one example is "SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health."

It's way less scary.

[mark88]

Because as we have said, the reasons being given are total BS. All bogus.


Im not asking why people would want to do it. Im asking why do you HAVE to do it. Thats what was said. :rolleyes:


OK, how's a real world example.

I have to use a program called VirtualDub on Windows. It allows me to browse through Video via keyframes, taking captures to the clipboard whever I choose to, it's extremely fast and simple. There is no such program on the mac, if there is I haven't found one.

Because I use this program alot(for work, I work from home) it therefore means I use my XP computer more than my Mac. Doing this means alot of my emails, my music, my web browsing etc etc is also done on this machine, simply because I'm sat infront of it more!

Why do I want to run this application on Mac? Because I can then do all my fun stuff in OS X and simply use the Windows App when I have to, for work.

Does that answer your question?

[Phobophobia]

I don't think Steve wants to mess around with Windows--it takes away his ability to control the user experience.

Furthermore, Apple will continue to gain market share simply by making superior products. Allowing normal consumers to run Windows easily on macs would be very counterproductive.

It's not going to be very long before mac sales growth REALLY picks up. We don't need Windows.

[brepublican]

You need to explain yourself, How is having a dual boot of OSX and Windows not the same as running Windows on an Intel Mac?

Honestly, you make no sense at all...
From my understanding of dual booting, you would have to have the 2 OSes on the same HD. While its possible to run Windows on x86 Mac hardware by itself, its not the same thing when you try to run it in the presence of OS X. OS X has several security features that would need to be bypassed inorder for the system to boot. An OS 9/Windows combination is more likely to work because OS 9 has less security features than OS X. I'm trying to say its not as easy as you make it seem.

[pgwalsh]

Once you get a taste of that OS X goodness, why would you even want to dual-boot into Windows? I wouldn't want to dual boot, but would love to run it in a window. Why? For testing things and helping people troubleshoot their Windows boxes. Same reason why I use VPC. I suppose if I were into gaming I'd want to dual boot and take advantage of the speed, which isn't so important for my use.

[mark88]

From my understanding of dual booting, you would have to have the 2 OSes on the same HD. While its possible to run Windows on x86 Mac hardware by itself, its not the same thing when you try to run it in the presence of OS X. OS X has several security features that would need to be bypassed inorder for the system to boot. An OS 9/Windows combination is more likely to work because OS 9 has less security features than OS X. I'm trying to say its not as easy as you make it seem.

Sorry mate, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. 'Running Windows in the presence of OS X' what exactly is that supposed to mean?

If you mean from within OS X then have you heard of a product called VirtualPC from Microsoft?

[brepublican]

Does that answer your question?
No. It seems to me that a better solution would be to press for a Mac version of VirtualDub... but thats just me. And I may be retarded, as you have already implied :rolleyes:

[blueflame]

the simple idea is, you should be able to do whatever the hell you want to do on your computer. just like your acr. you can put low end gas in a bmw, or high grade, its up to you, and doesnt hurt anyone either way
andreas

[brepublican]

Sorry mate, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. 'Running Windows in the presence of OS X' what exactly is that supposed to mean?

If you mean from within OS X then have you heard of a product called VirtualPC from Microsoft?
Oh god I give up. This has nothing to do with how VPC works. Its more to do with the Startup Disk control...

[AidenShaw]

I am wondering if the 7200RPM HDD in mine even makes it that much hotter?.
I upgraded the 100 GB 4200 RPM disk in my D600 to a 100 GB 7200 RPM (HTS721010G9ST00).

It isn't noticeably warmer than the old disk. (The disk area under the left palm is warm during use, but never hot - just like the old drive.)

We upgraded about a half dozen of these systems at the same time, and I've heard no complaints.

[swano]

Just us OSX, it actually WORKS when you need it to. I want to go on a huge reant about Windows sucking and OSX ruling but until you actually try OSX you won't know what you're missing...unless you like having to deal with crashes and viruses all the time.

[ejl10]

Anyone ever consider the flip side? If Apple allowed dual/tri boot, but didn't allow OS X to be installed on anything other than a Mac, they'd create a monopoly for the "universal computer." What's more, they'd enforce it with barriers to entry (e.g. no OS X for other PCs), which gives them a competitive advantage and puts them at odds with the law.

The best choice for Apple is to make a visible effort to prevent users from installing other OS's on their Macs (like they are doing) so they can argue that they're selling a complete computing experience... software and hardware that are inseparable from one another. Then, if the hacking community manages to find a way, they can at least claim that they did everything they could to prevent it, and that they are not actively generating the monopoly. Even better, if Microsoft itself changes the structure of Windows so it will boot on a Mac... hey, their fault, not ours.

The biggest threat Apple faces as they grow market share is lawsuits from Microsoft and/or other PC vendors claiming that they've created and are actively maintaining a monopoly with barriers to entry for other potential competitors. We've villianized Microsoft as the monopolist for a long time; they won't hesitate to return the favor. And its much harder to villainize an underdog than a big successful corporation.

[mark88]

No. It seems to me that a better solution would be to press for a Mac version of VirtualDub... but thats just me. And I may be retarded, as you have already implied :rolleyes:

Oh right, and I'm really going to persude a software developer to create a mac version just for me?

That was only 1 of about 4 programs I use, I'll email the other and see what they say too eh?

[windmaomao]

Im not asking why people would want to do it. Im asking why do you HAVE to do it. Thats what was said. :rolleyes:
that sounds identical to me :eek:

[dontnoeya]

does anyone have a stock MBP that gets really hot?

[mark88]

Anyone ever consider the flip side? If Apple allowed dual/tri boot, but didn't allow OS X to be installed on anything other than a Mac, they'd create a monopoly for the "universal computer." What's more, they'd enforce it with barriers to entry (e.g. no OS X for other PCs), which gives them a competitive advantage and puts them at odds with the law.



But Microsoft aren't like Apple. Microsoft sell software, I don't think they are likely to object to anyone installing Windows on [WHATEVER] as long as they buy a license. And let's not forget, Microsoft have created VirtualPC, which in effect does create an all in one computer, especially when it's running on intel, so they can hardly complain.

I still think dual boot is of limited interest to most people. I kinda see your point tho..its double standards

[windmaomao]

Anyone ever consider the flip side? If Apple allowed dual/tri boot, but didn't allow OS X to be installed on anything other than a Mac, they'd create a monopoly for the "universal computer." What's more, they'd enforce it with barriers to entry (e.g. no OS X for other PCs), which gives them a competitive advantage and puts them at odds with the law.

The best choice for Apple is to make a visible effort to prevent users from installing other OS's on their Macs (like they are doing) so they can argue that they're selling a complete computing experience... software and hardware that are inseparable from one another. Then, if the hacking community manages to find a way, they can at least claim that they did everything they could to prevent it, and that they are not actively generating the monopoly. Even better, if Microsoft itself changes the structure of Windows so it will boot on a Mac... hey, their fault, not ours.

The biggest threat Apple faces as they grow market share is lawsuits from Microsoft and/or other PC vendors claiming that they've created and are actively maintaining a monopoly with barriers to entry for other potential competitors. We've villianized Microsoft as the monopolist for a long time; they won't hesitate to return the favor. And its much harder to villainize an underdog than a big successful corporation.

can't agree more. Some people just take what apple says too serious, like they don't prevent, yeright, they're against IMHO.

[winmacguy]

This is awesome news for Apple... Wish I had bought some of their shares back in the day! Maybe now isn't too late... :cool:
Now is actually a pretty good time to buy AAPL
http://www.google.co.nz/search?oi=stock&q=stocks:AAPL&prev=/search%3Fq%3DAAPL%2B%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

[ZildjianKX]

Apple lost a laptop sale from me when I went to law school since I was required to have a PC laptop for the test taking software...

It would really help the law school crowd at least, being able to boot windows on a mac.

[socamx]

The potential ability for the new Intel Macs to run Windows has drawn a lot of attention and controversy amongst Mac users.

Mmmm...flame wars. This thread is full of them.

Honestly if you require Windows for two or more very specific programs, just stick with Windows and forget OS X until your needs are met and stay with the computer that works for you. I'll take convenience of having all my programs running natively and proplerly instead of booting to another OS or running them in an environment that isn't native.

If I had a requirement to run very specific Windows programs that had absolutely no other alternative, I'd be running Windows right now. Depends on the importance of it, like the law school guy that needs to boot up a special way so that they only open a text editor.

To me it just simply is not convenient to have to do special things to run programs I need; I wouldn't be using a computer if it wasn't convenient for me.

____________________

As for the marketshare rising...to be quite honest, I don't see Apple making significant increases anytime soon. I don't have any fact to back this up, just what I feel.

[jcrowe]

Not wanting to be negative or anything but Apple has a very very long way to go before it sell anywhere near as many computers as Dell.
IMO, Apple does not need to sell as many computers as Dell to be successful. Dell sells the PC equivalent of a Big Mac....Apple products are far more integrated and seamless, IMO. There's plenty of room for both approaches in the market place. To relate this to the notebook market specifically, Apple's offerings are now much more competative in this space and as more apps become native, the Macbook Pros will probably sell a lot more units generating more market share and more reason for developers to port apps to the Mac. I hope that Apple comes out with a 17" model by the end of 2006.....
Respectfully,
Joe Crowe

[Cubert]

I think that once someone uses a Mac for a short time, they realize that the need for it to run Windoze is a fictional one. People are just so afraid to get out of their comfort zone and take the first step. Apple needs to find a way to get people to try out OS X without buying a Mac first, besides having their own stores (which is a good start).

[socamx]

Apple needs to find a way to get people to try out OS X without buying a Mac first, besides having their own stores (which is a good start).

Schools and colleges are a good place to start. There is an all iMac G5 lab in my college and I have a couple classes in it; I am constantly surprising people that are long time Windows users with what they can do with the OS (I go around doing a lot of help for teachers and students that don't understand some things with Macs; it's good to know more about the OS than the average user).

Apple should go after more schools and colleges to adopt Macs instead of Windows-based PC's.

[quigleybc]

I'm not even gonna think about picking up an Intel machine for at least another year or so...


If I'm gonna spent that much $$, it must work perfectly, I don't want to be the guinnea pig and "find out" what works good and what doesn't...I have a ton of Apps and Pro Apps that will just be unusable the minute I buy an Intel machine..

And now I guess it is insanely hot...and who knows what other bugs will crawl out with this being the first of it's kind..

That being said, I can't wait for a rev B Intel Mac Book (iBook) by then everything should be caught up and ironed out...

$0.02

[gnasher729]

Exactly. Dual booting would almost certainly spell the end for the Mac OS, since software makers would only issue Windows versions. It seems people who are advocating dual booting would just love to see this happen.

Complete nonsense.

Any software company run by idiots who think they could stop selling a MacOS X version would get a bad surprise. If you tell any Macintosh owner that he can run a Windows version instead of a MacOS X version that used to be available, the response will be "******* off", and that Mac user will go to a competitor.

[MarcelV]

All of those in this thread that are stating, you don't by a Mac till it runs Windows. Don't you alreday have a PPC Mac? I can't imagine all of you are running VPC. And when you don't run it now, why is it suddenly so important to you, now the machine runs on Intel? To me, this just doesn't make sense. Yes, there are certain programs that are used in the Windows world that are not available on the Mac and alternatives are not always compatible. For some that is an issue. But I have the feeling a lot of the people here are suddenly wanting Windows on it just because the new machines are running on Intel, without even a rational thinking. And let that even influence their buying?

[mark88]

I think that once someone uses a Mac for a short time, they realize that the need for it to run Windoze is a fictional one. People are just so afraid to get out of their comfort zone and take the first step. Apple needs to find a way to get people to try out OS X without buying a Mac first, besides having their own stores (which is a good start).

I don't understand this want that people have for everyone to switch to OS X. I like the fact that OS X has a smaller niche market.

The reasons Windows users have to deal with so many secuirty issues, viruses and spyware is because it has a 90% share!

Like many people here I prefer OS X to Windows, the difference between me and *some* of people on this board is that I seem to be able to understand why people want to use Windows, that some people actually prefer it and that OS X is not the be all and end all of operating systems.

Since I've been using OS X I've encountered so many ignorant views about Windows and why Macs are better. Half of them are just Mac elitist driffle. It's pathetic.

[ChrisA]

Anyone use this program to run Windows on your MBP / iMac?
http://openosx.com/wintel/index.html

I don't hear much about it.

Wow, some guy is charging $60 for free software. QEMU is under GUN's GPL and is available with source code for free. GPL does not prohibit re-sale but it does required that anyone doing so must also give you a copy of the code for free if you ask. I guess they are depending on the fact that not many Mac users would know either (1) to ask or (2) what to do with source code.

There have been a number of successfull attempts to run Windows in a virtual environment on Intel Macs. But your average user does not want a free QEMM download, they'd actually prefer to go into a store and buy a $60 box so this may help.

Also for many people a computer is mostly used as a game console and a media player For then A virtual environment is of not use. They need to run on the actual grapic hardware to get reasonable frame rates in FPS games. They r the ones who need "dual boot"

[FoxyKaye]

There are some companies that pressing for OS X native installations of their programs will take a very long time to succeed, if ever. Another example is in the nonprofit sector - the best fundraising/development software on the market all runs on Windows, period. You can get OS X fundraising programs, but they're not nearly as robust or useful for querying donor and foundation records. In the meantime, nonprofits with Mac networks are using Citrix servers on Windows to run their development databases and allow access on Macs - and let me tell you that Citrix is hardly a solution, when it feels like working at all.

In the end Apple is a company that must make its shareholders happy. Steve's Cult of Personality aside, if it will make Apple more money to provide for installing Windows on its hardware, then it will happen. If it will make Apple more money to release a generic PC version of OS X, then it will happen. Apple's a corporation just like every other corporation out there - our rampant speculation and catty remarks to each other are just that. Apple has teams of folks to study the market - they'll make the decision that best produces profit in the short and long term.

[notjustjay]

No. It seems to me that a better solution would be to press for a Mac version of VirtualDub... but thats just me.

Sure, that's the solution to every problem in the software world, isn't it? I'll just "press for a Mac version" of ScenalyzerLive and ACDSee, and Microsoft Exchange, and every online commerce website that requires Internet Explorer, and ...

I suppose I could also single-handedly destroy Apple's advantage in digital media editing by "pressing for a Windows version" of Final Cut Pro, too.

[p0intblank]

This is Apple's big chance to gain some big market share! If only Windows XP was EFI-based, rather than BIOS. I know that may sound evil, but this article proves a good point. People are willing to buy a Mac if it can run Windows... that way the user would be in familiar territory AND they would get to learn a new and better OS. :)

At least the love for the Mac is increasing, though. I want more people to use Macs and appreciate the greatness they have to offer.

[gnasher729]

Because some people HAVE to run Windows. And if you're going to run it on something, having one box to use Windows AND MacOS, a Mac is one helluva lot better than a grey/black/red/green/chunder coloured PC.

There are also people who actually _prefer_ Windows. They are not at all interested in running MacOS X. And quite a few of those people would like to own a Mac Mini, or an iMac, or a MacBook Pro, just for the quality of the hardware. An Apple computer that can _boot_ Windows (not dual boot, just Windows and nothing else) would sell in considerable numbers.

[Kingsly]

I would love to see Apple gain more market share, and I think (unfortunately) running windows is the answer. [fingers crossed]If Apple hits $103 I will be very happy, as I watched in terror as all my AAPL fell after MWSF 06![/fingers crossed]

[mozmac]

I've been a mac user since 1995. My new job that I started on January required that I get a Windows laptop. I've fallen in love with my ThinkPad, however, I long for the day that I will be able to go back to using an Apple notebook. Apple needs to either make it really easy to install Windows on their machines or they need to dump tons of money into the Wine project so that we could have EVERYTHING (OS X, Windows, and Linux) all on one machine. When that happens, Apple's market share will shoot through the roof.

I would like to backup the survey that said more college students are switching to Macs. I've noticed the same shift here on my campus. It used to be the when I saw another Mac user, I could talk to them and expect them to be a Pro user. Now I don't even bother to stop and talk to them, because so many of them are Windows switchers that don't really know too much about Apples. I'm not shunning them...welcome to the Mac world!...however, I know that I won't be able to have an in depth Apple discussion with them.

[keysersoze]

Seriously, why run Windows on a Mac?

Are there not enough hardware manufactures that support Windows exclusively? Why people even run windows anymore is beyond me.

Remember the old, "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?" commercial?

It should be, "How man clicks does it take to remove a program from your computer?"

windows >> START > CONTROLPANEL > ADD/REMOVE PROGRAMS > PROGRAM NAME >> CLICK REMOVE >> CLICK ARE YOUR SURE >> YOU MUST REBOOT FOR THESE CHANGES TO TAKE EFFECT!


Total 6 clicks ( +too long of delay from rebooting)

apple os x >> FINDER > APPLICATIONS > DRAG-N-DROP TO TRASH

Total 3 clicks

This is only one point in too many to mention, as to why OS X is far more Superior than Windows.

Running Windows is like going inside of Mcdonalds to place an order!
Running OS X is express access thru the Drive-Thru!

Is it lunch yet?

ummm... you forgot:

1. Find Regedit
2. Run Regedit
3. Search for any/all bits and entries pertaining to your "uninstalled" software
4. Delete it.
5. Pray.



:D

[sunfast]

I think that once someone uses a Mac for a short time, they realize that the need for it to run Windoze is a fictional one. People are just so afraid to get out of their comfort zone and take the first step. Apple needs to find a way to get people to try out OS X without buying a Mac first, besides having their own stores (which is a good start).

This is a really good point. I was nervous about losing windows when I switched. Heard so many good things about OS X (all true I can now confirm!) but didn't dare splash out for a brand new mac. Hence eBay. But would definitely buy a new mac now.

[gnasher729]

Why would you want to run windows on a mac? Isnt that the whole point of switching? To get away from windows. People are totally missing the point of owning a mac in the first place. :rolleyes:

Given the choice of running Windows on an ugly pile of black plastic from Dell, or running Windows on a beautiful looking iMac, many people would prefer running Windows on the iMac. An iMac is a computer that you can set up in the living room without being shouted at by the wife. That alone would be a reason for many dedicated Windows users to by an iMac.

[roxnadz]

And let's not forget. Certain 'elements' of this forum think OS X is better and that once someone uses OS X 'why use Windows again'....

Not realising there are millions of people who actually prefer Windows over OS X and use it out of choice.

For many, this "choice" is because they simply don't know any better. When all you know is Windows, what are you most likely to be comfortable with?

I first tried switching in 2001...got myself a TiBook and it mostly sat on the desk and collected dust. Finally ended up selling it off to someone. I had plenty of reasons - I liked (rather, dealt with) Windows, not enough Mac apps, etc.

So I tried switch again in 2004, this time to a much faster AlBook. There were more Mac-native apps, and for what I was doing, a Mac far suited me better than Windows. I was hooked. I even gave up playing games on laptops running Windows because I simply got more work done on the Mac and games were secondary. Now, that said, if more games were out on Mac, that'd be a fine, fine thing...even less reason to use a Windows box.

I already know I'm going to have a Rev B MacBook...I've already got the money budgeted for it whenever it comes out.

I, at first, thought that dual-booting Windows would be a great idea, but now I'm not so sure...because yes, big software development houses are lazy as hell, and little software development houses don't have the coin to push software out for multiple platforms. You can already see a big example with Adobe - "hey, Photoshop CS2 runs great under Rosetta, so we'll wait until CS3 to go Universal Binary." Don't think that others aren't watching this and planning their rollouts accordingly. If the MacBook becomes another Windows laptop, then OSX-native apps will decline, due to the points listed above.

We'll see, though. A Darwine/WineHQ solution would work best for me, I think.

[socamx]

Since I've been using OS X I've encountered so many ignorant views about Windows and why Macs are better. Half of them are just Mac elitist driffle. It's pathetic.

So true, but that said...there is also all the Linux/Unix/Windows elitist driffle. It goes full circle.

One reason I avoid posting on these forums are the large amounts of Mac elitists that are ready to tear people apart that begin to mention something in the least bit negative about Apple and/or OS X. Hand in hand with that is also the trolls that sign up that are Windows elitists just to smack talk Macs.

This thread is a good example of some elitists. The posts that have some logical thought into them get overlooked by the elitist posts mucking up everything.

Maybe I should just stop posting here...

[Rivix]

Im a university student, and I want a MacBook Pro :D

[ChrisA]

I think that once someone uses a Mac for a short time, they realize that the need for it to run Windoze is a fictional one. People are just so afraid to get out of their comfort zone and take the first step. Apple needs to find a way to get people to try out OS X without buying a Mac first, besides having their own stores (which is a good start).


You see the exact same thing with people starting to think about using Linux. At first they think they want a dual boot machine and that they can't live without Windows then after a while they find they are not using Windows because re-boting the machine is just to much hassel. Then they discover that Windows can run as a guest OS under Linux in a verual environment

The real problem is that people really don't know much about computers they think they will have to start over again and learn everything all over. There have been some experiments where the IT staf has swaped out Windows 2000 runing IE and Office for Linux running Open Office and Firefox and in many cases the uses din't notice. they were just told it's "the new version" and the funny part is the ones who were the least knowagable about computers where the ones who adapted. I've though for a long thime that a Linux box would be the best thing for giving to your grandmother, just don't tell her the root password and you'll never have the fix the computer for her.

At home we still have one PC. The disk smoked so when I re-built it put Open Office on it in place of the old copy of Office I had. So far the wife and kids have not noticed.

Swap the words "Mac OS X" for linux and the abbove would stil be true

[matznentosh]

The ONLY reason people want Windows on a Mac is because they want to use programs made for Windows. Put Windows on a Mac and kiss your reliability and security goodbye.


Um. No. I work at a place in which IT only allows windows machines. I cannot use my mac at work as a result. If I had a Macintel that could run windows - and it has to be Windows 2000 - they would let me set it up.

This isn't a question of loyalties or correct vs incorrect platforms. It is about keeping a computer system that works well for me, but being able to use it at work with the requirements for a specific kind of system.

[YoNeX]

Throw my two cents:

1. The possiblity of whatever you want to call it, run Windows in emulation, dual boot, is essential for the time being. One reason, is Adobe will not have a UB out for a while, now the only way to run adobe software (most of them), is to dual boot (or other methods) to run Adobe software at native speed. Now, you going to tell me that I'm not "supposed" to do this, just because I want to run Adobe software at native speed.

2. There are other pro applications and hell, even freeware apps that are not avaliable yet or never will be avaliable for OS X, so what am I suppose to do? Just buy another computer for the sole purpose of using that one software, when I spend 2K+ on a notebook that I can boot into Windows and run the app.

3. The so called "switchers" you say it, the ones using Windows generally have A LOT of Windows softwae, so you are telling all those people that bought those software to shove it? They have to buy all those software for Macs just because you don't like the idea of Windows being run on a Mac?

4. If the OS X software is so great (yes I do agree its great, but not "excellent", like every OS, still has problems and issues), why will people switch to Windows? You don't need to yell at me that OS X is better than Windows, I know it is better in some ways. Just let them eXPerience (no pun intended ;)) OS X, and they won't have to go back to Windows. If you are arguing why they switch to Windows, it seems you lack confidence in OS X delivering the experience.

I'll end with these two note:

It is MY COMPUTER, I will do what I want to do with it, If I want to install Windows, I will do it. If I want to install a linux distro, I will do it.

Just because something doesn't seem useful to you, does not mean it may not be useful for others. I hate to use a cliche, but here it goes:
"One man's trash, is another man's treasure."

So be able to accept change, nobody likes it, but change is coming. You do not need to put down others for wanting to try new things, but greet them with courtesy. Apple thinks differently, are you going to think differently and allow for new people to join the Apple family, or are you going to be a sheep and follow the ideas of the bandwagon and reject ideas of other operating systems?

[MrCrowbar]

My old HDD in my lame 3 yr old XP laptop was often above 55°C. I have a little tool called "HDtune" (Windows) that monitors temperature in the task bar. Once when downloading overnight, this thing crossed the deadly 60°C line and the loud sound it produced woke me up. However I was able to back up the content on my external drive before the internal HDD died only minutes later. And that was a 40GB 4200rpm 2,5" hard drive. I replaced it with a new Seagate (same brand as in Apple books) with the same specs, and this one runs 10°C cooler.

So here are my tips for a cool laptop:

- use SLOW HDDs (4200rpm). Acess time is a bit worse, but your HDD will live longer, eat less battery life, be cooler less noisy when idling.
- use HDDs with a lot of cache. This makes the HDD head less jumpy.
- allow the HDD to spin down when not in use. (But don't set the timeout too low. 10 minutes are ok)
- upgrade your RAM. Seriously, put as much RAM in your laptop as possible.
- avoid copying/moving multiple files at once or using p2p applications with miltiple files. Doing this causes the HDD head to jump between the different files thus pruducing heat.
- use expensive and quite HDDs in laptops. These run cooler than cheap ones most of the time.
- Let you mac run at night (3 am) or run extra appls to defragment the HDD.

[adroit]

Um. No. I work at a place in which IT only allows windows machines. I cannot use my mac at work as a result. If I had a Macintel that could run windows - and it has to be Windows 2000 - they would let me set it up.

This isn't a question of loyalties or correct vs incorrect platforms. It is about keeping a computer system that works well for me, but being able to use it at work with the requirements for a specific kind of system.

My thought exactly.

Most companies/schools are still running windows and will be running windows.

I am a university student, and I just can't afford to buy another window machine just to do my assignments.

[ScubaDuc]

Um. No. I work at a place in which IT only allows windows machines. I cannot use my mac at work as a result. If I had a Macintel that could run windows - and it has to be Windows 2000 - they would let me set it up.

This isn't a question of loyalties or correct vs incorrect platforms. It is about keeping a computer system that works well for me, but being able to use it at work with the requirements for a specific kind of system.

I fully agree with you although I also see the point of other posts that worry about developers not supporting OSX. However, even for home use, there are some peripheral, new ones too (marked OSX) that don't fully work with OSX. An example is my Brother MFC. I bought it because I really wanted a scanner with pagefeeder and working via ethernet. With OSX3.9, the scanning function only works via USB although it prints via ethernet/wi-fi ( don't care though since I have a magicolor). With Windooze, it also scans via Wi-Fi to any (window) PC in the network. It is totally out of the question that I engage in redundant activities, like plugging and unplugging USB devices...I wanna scan from the scanner!!! :mad: My Aladin air is only compatible with windows too. So, do I have to keep a PC desktop just for the scanner or can I buy a new intel PowerMac instead of a Mini and a Pentium D?

[bevo]

I know more than a few people who would gladly go back to owning a mac or would purchase their first mac if they could also install or windows applications on there mac.

Many have put buying a new computer because they heard that apple would be moving to an intel platform. But since they went and made it fairly difficult to near impossible to install windows on any new intel machine now, some have put their money into buying another dell or compaq.


I think its rediculous. Apple just isn't selling OSX with its hardware, they're seeling prebuilt computers. They have the potential to cross a dividing line that could build a greater base of users.

[dwsolberg]

If you let Windows people dual boot, then it really is a contest between operating systems. If people enjoy using the Mac system, they'll buy applications for the Mac. If they enjoy using the Windows system, they'll buy applications for Windows. I believe that OS X is the best system by far, so I'm more than happy to let people decide for themselves. In other words, by giving people a real choice, you allow them to do what's best for them. Software companies will make what people buy, so you don't need to worry about that.

By the way, I need to run the latest version of SPSS and a few other speciality programs, so right now I use a Windows computer in addition to my PowerBook.

Also, I have a friend who wants to buy a Mac and just use Windows on it. That's okay by me because he's a Windows programming guy and has no other use for Apple's computer. It pads Apple's bottom line and provides a little extra exposure to Apple's products that wouldn't otherwise happen. Who knows, maybe he'll start to like the Mac.

[GHM73]

Running Windows on a Mac would be like replacing the steering wheel on a Ferrari with banana. Why cripple a sophisticated machine with an unusable user interface.

[Craigy]

Because some people HAVE to run Windows. And if you're going to run it on something, having one box to use Windows AND MacOS, a Mac is one helluva lot better than a grey/black/red/green/chunder coloured PC.

read the thread, and you'll see the same answer, 25 or more times. :rolleyes:
I'll give my 26th reason then as well :)

We run a web design company, mainly specialising in databse driven stuff. Our customers use MS SQL Server and we have to be able to access it and design for it. We run Enterprise manager unit VPC on out machines and laptops. We also need to check browser compatibility cross platform.

We do not want to run hardware PCs so VPC is a fantastic solution for us and many others.

[AidenShaw]

Running Windows on a Mac would be like replacing the steering wheel on a Ferrari with banana. Why cripple a sophisticated machine with an unusable user interface.
In case you haven't noticed, there's virtually no hardware difference between an MBP and a ThinkPad Core Duo other than the color....

An Apple laptop uses the same commodity components as the other Intel books.

You win the prize for the worst automotive analogy yet posted on this forum! :)

[Whiteapple]

Running Windows on a Mac would be like replacing the steering wheel on a Ferrari with banana. Why cripple a sophisticated machine with an unusable user interface.

Actually, I would prefer a banana and a engine that doesnt blow up, rather than a nice alu-designed wheel and have to replace the engine every two weeks. Bad example.

It is true that windows is not perfect, OSX isnt either. Up to now, the only thing i reproached to OSX was that it wasnt very snappy, but that may come from the 4200rpm HDD of my ibook, lets see what i'll get with a 7200rpm macbook

[manu chao]

Um. No. I work at a place in which IT only allows windows machines. I cannot use my mac at work as a result. If I had a Macintel that could run windows - and it has to be Windows 2000 - they would let me set it up.

What is the point of using a Mac if you have to run Windows on it?

[jaydub]

While I haven't decided to purchase an MBP, the possibility of running windows is an attractive "feature" because I use some programs which do not have a Mac counterpart. Now, for someone like me who doesn't do gaming, it'd be a great to just be able to run a few windows programs.

I've been out of the apple scene for ages though, so I don't even know the answer to this -- but can Apples see networked NTFS drives?

[Electro Funk]

I think some people are missing the point. In the real world those of us that love OS X still have to deal with clients and colleagues that run Windows applications. There are a lot of enterprises out there that have standardized on IE as their web browser and the entire Office suite + Project and Visio. The latter two apps in particular force the use of windows.

I don't believe there is a big demand for dual booting Windows on a mac. What I believe most people want is the ability to run a windows app as a window in OS X with the ability to copy and paste between those apps and their true OS X apps. Microsoft Office for OS X with Entourage provides 90% of the compatibility that is required in many companies.

What we need is a solution that virtualizes Windows inside OS X on the Intel platform, utilizing the underlying intel hardware to turbo charge the virtualization whereever possible. This will allow us to stay in OS X for 98% of what we do and run a virtualized windows applicaiton for the few things that absolutely require windows.

i could not have said it better... it's not that we want to buy a mac and use windows apps on it... it is that we have to run some windows only apps on a daily basis for work and we dont like WINDOWS! i have owned a pbg4 for the last five years... i also have an imac core duo, and the list goes on... the fact that i own all these macs does not change the fact that i work in the networking industry and there are some apps i have to run on a daily basis that just will not run under osx... what am i to do??? well right now the answer is a dell latitude provided by my company (thank god i didnt have to drop the cheese for it)...

It would be soooooo nice to be able to get rid of this dell and start carrying my new macbook pro with me everyday!

[mark88]

If you let Windows people dual boot, then it really is a contest between operating systems.

It's NOT!

People who buy Macs and end up installing Windows will do so because they want a Mac, but HAVE TO or WANT TO use Windows for one reason or another.

There aren't going to be masses of people buying Intel macs just because you can install both OS X and Windows on them. For one thing, they are very very expensive.

[Chef Medeski]

:eek: 44 odd percent of college students! Crikey that would be rather impressive. Though I'm equally pressed by the 27% figure of college students! Well the sky's the limit I guess.

Probably next year Microsoft will be saying it would be nice to have a 10% market share!
Yeah, but how many college students honesty can either afford a Mac let alone a brand new Intel Mac?

I bet if you asked, 99% would say they want a ferrari, doesn't mean much.

[jaydub]

Yeah, but how many college students honesty can either afford a Mac let alone a brand new Intel Mac?

I bet if you asked, 99% would say they want a ferrari, doesn't mean much.
Working in a University, you'd be surprised how much money students have for school, whether by way of student loans or grants. Most of them know that having a relatively new computer is a necessity so they plan accordingly.

[lorien]

i would use windows to play some older games such as Icewind Dale 2 and Baldurs Gate 2 among some of my other RPG games i already own for windows.

Yeah totally, I'd use windoze to play games, thats all though. :cool:

[docpsycho]

2) The model has been out long enough for things like the 15" PowerBook FW800's screen problem to be ironed out.



Funny I still have not had any issues with my Pb as mentioned above. and use the (bleep0 out of it doing sound editing and the what not


My concern is there has been ZERO mention of unique identifier embedded in the processor and it can be traced back to you. Now, on ye ancient P3 systems is was actually designed to be turned off in BIOS. can it be turned off on the MPB & Iimac? or is big brother is watching you??

[rcha101]

wahoo! 10 % market share!

I know so many of my collegues that would get an apple if its able to run Windows.


As a switcher, I find this unbelievable. I am simply sick of Windows which is why I am selling my PC and purchasing a Macbook. Do people realise that they only need to be to open and edit the same file formats etc or run a mac version of the software they already use?

Cut the cord!

[dubnluvn]

Why would you want to run windows on a mac? Isnt that the whole point of switching? To get away from windows. People are totally missing the point of owning a mac in the first place. :rolleyes:


I've been an Apple/Mac user since I was 6 (Man did I love Questron II on my IIgs). I've owned many many Macs. This last year, due to my job (which pays me money so I can buy Apple stuff like a shuffle for my daughter, 7, a nano for my wife, a 5G iPod for myself and so on) I HAD to buy a PC laptop. Believe me I was not happy about this prospect. I tried VPC which was frustratingly sluggish, and all I have to do is use some internet app that requires IE 5.5 with the Alternatiff plugin (unavailable for firefox, which I found that could bypass the IE requirement by using the user agent switcher). So roll your eyes, but when your passion and love for the Macintosh gets T-boned by the fact that your source of income dictates that must dirty your hands on the darkside, you will be looking for a solution to end the ennui you have found yourself in too!
Dual booting is not the most attractive solution but you can bet that as soon as it can be done, I'll be doing it and tossing the PC. I'm hoping WINE will be the way to go, running windows apps natively on the mac with no Windoze.

[dubnluvn]

It's NOT!
There aren't going to be masses of people buying Intel macs just because you can install both OS X and Windows on them. For one thing, they are very very expensive.


Since when is $1299 expensive for a computer let alone a Mac?

[pimentoLoaf]

VirtualPC ran slower on my 500mhz iBook a couple of years ago than an old DOS 386 system ran Windows 3.1; when I loaded it onto my 2003 17" pB it ran only a bit faster.

VPC on an IntelMac should obviously go like gangbusters, and may even survive the "acid test" = Unreal Tournament 2003/4 PC (or similiar) with no noticeable lag compared to actual PC's.

IF Microsoft can accomplish that, I could retire two machines, provided Apple brings out a 17" (or perhaps 20" ??) mBP.

[Fukui]

If OSX could run windows apps then companies would give up writing software for native OSX. We've seen this before with IBM OS2 - don't let history repeat itself.
Perhaps, but not necessarily.

Windows and OS/2 looked so similar that things like buttons, title bars, even fonts looks similar, so a windows app on OS/2 didn't make much difference. Contrast Windows with Aqua, and you see it becomes harder to sell windows apps to mac users in all but the most corporate/desparate markets...

Besides, even if true, isn't that what "dharma" is for?

[shen]

Yeah, but how many college students honesty can either afford a Mac let alone a brand new Intel Mac?

I bet if you asked, 99% would say they want a ferrari, doesn't mean much.

more than half the students in my philosophy classes use Macs. most of them bought new 12 and 15 inch powerbooks at the beginning of the year. or rather their parents bought them. don't underestimate the buying power of a student who can make a case for needing something for their education.....

[jaydub]

more than half the students in my philosophy classes use Macs. most of them bought new 12 and 15 inch powerbooks at the beginning of the year. or rather their parents bought them. don't underestimate the buying power of a student who can make a case for needing something for their education.....
precisely! I'm rather jealous of this guy in my Accounting class who comes with his 12" powerbook. :(

[JLatte]

I love mac, and I love OSX. Unfortunately, I'm a college student that is majoring in computer science. The only reason I need a PC is for running any .net framework such as C++, C# or Java. While it is somewhat possible to run C programs, and Java in XCode, I'm required to use .net. I *tried* running the editor in VPC, and that was absolutely horrendous with a 1GHZ G4 Powerbook with 1.25 ram. The day Microsoft creates a .net framework compatible with OSX (haha) is the day I can completely 100% use Mac only. Unfortunately it looks like I'll be looking at using dual boot when Vista comes out for my programming purposes. Absolutely everything else is Mac though.

[reyesmac]

Apple would have a possible convert from it and they can still charge the same price as any other Macbook. Of course, it would not come with Windows or be supported by Apple if it ran windows. I see nothing at all wrong with this. If Apple wants to make money off hardware, this is a way to do it. More people would try the Mac this way than ever would any other way.

[lord patton]

I bet right now, in Cupertino, there exists a program that will run Windows apps on Intel Macs very, very, well.

and I bet Apple will release it as soon as Adobe CS and MS Office are Universal Binaries.

[iQuit]

Having Windows support wouldn't be a good idea for the Mac, think of the viruses and all the problems that would lie ahead. To make money and to not piss of Mac people they should have it as an option pre-loaded with a dual-boot OS.

[atomwork]

I recently received my macbook from apple ( 2 days ago ) I used it for 30 minutes and it got so hot that it's not even useable. Maybe people that live in Canada ( Where it is cold ) won't notice it, but I live in Florida. I am also scared that my kids can get burned if they touch it.
The bottom is super hot, as is the left front where you would rest your hand while typing. I called Apple to return it and they told me that I selected the faster hardrive, in being so they wont return it.

I know other people are saying the same thing about the heat issue. Apple does not disclose this on the website in any obvious place. In my users manual that came with the MBP, it says the machine may get "Warm" with extended use. That is a total understatement! My MBP get's "Hot" almost right away. Also, I am a registered Apple Developer and work as a Linux Sys Admin. I am well aware of how much heat is acceptable. I have a feeling that Apple is going to have major problems with this in the near future..

Listed below is all my Apple hardware, so please don't think I don't know my Mac's. I am a mac lover! However, the macbook pro is unacceptable.

I have give Apple a formal request for a return/refund. If they don't I am wiling to investigate a Class Action Lawsuit, since I am not the only one complaining about this.

MBPRO 15/2.0 CTO
2.0GHz Intel Core Duo/256MB
1GB 667 DDR2- 1 SO-DIMM
100GB Serial ATA Drive@7200rpm
SuperDrive (DVD±RW/CD-RW)
BkLit Keyboard/Mac OS
Airport Extreme Card&BT

Also,
I have a PowerMac G5 dual 2.0, 2GB ram
Mac Mini 1.5 PPC running OpenBSD
PowerBook 12"


Not even closely true. I cannot confirm this. There is a clear difference between getting warm and hot! I live in Florida with a kid too.

Seems you MBP is damaged or you have a unique sense of heat feeling.

BTW: i would be more afraid of having my daughter break the book;)

Dave

[Eric5h5]

VPC on an IntelMac should obviously go like gangbusters, and may even survive the "acid test" = Unreal Tournament 2003/4 PC (or similiar) with no noticeable lag compared to actual PC's.

That would only work if VPC gets 3D hardware acceleration, which is unlikely. Even VPC on Windows doesn't have 3D acceleration. It's not a trivial feature to implement, for reasons discussed in other topics; you can probably search for it if you're interested.

--Eric

[Cheese]

SOOOO, Everyone seems to think that the MBP is going to be the cure for all that ails them? Once you truly go Mac, you should never look back. There is nothing more gratifying than to know that the rest of the world is languishing in the muck of Micro$uck and all of it's widely felt shortcomings, while you can easily answer them with, "I have not needed any 3rd party apps, my computer does NOT lock up, get viruses, worms, or seem to be affected by malware. What I like best is that it just works, which makes it much easier for me to do my work. I would rather have 5 apps that work properly, predictably, and reliably, than 15 million that do not work at all". Does anyone know of one Windoze machine zealot? Brand loyalty that rivals and perhaps surpasses even Harley-Davidson should mean a lot. (I have an Apple sticker on my motorcycle helmet!) Have you ever seen anyone sporting a Dell tattoo? Dell Schmell. Their customer base is losing ground faster than Apple is growing. And it is growing. I don't care about market share, except that I hope it grows at a pace fast enough to keep the R&D folks busily whipping up the latest and greatest that Cupertino has to offer. It doesn't bother me at all to know that a simple choice I made 7 years ago is keeping some people from sleeping at night. When the switches are made to all those MBP's, there will be a lot of great computers in the hands of desperate people, who just want a computer that works. Unfortunately, many of them will think that they cannot break free from the grip of Microwuss. That is part of Bill's trap. Get the MBP, take OSX out for a test drive. It has a smoother ride, uses less gas, cranks right up every time, won't leave you stranded, and is the best looking one on the block everytime you go out.
Remember, I once thought I disliked Mac's. After 15 seconds of thinking different my life has never been the same. Honestly.

[crispoe]

This is why VMWare is not working on VMWare for OS X. I believe they are expecting you to be able to boot windows natively in Leopard (which may make the product sort of useless for non-it and non-devolpers/testers), So they dont need to write any code. You can just run the Windows Version of vmware if you need the technical benefits of vmware.

I hope Dvorak is wrong. I would settle for a 50/50 split as long as I still have OS X as my host OS.

[barstard]

This is great. If Apple has pent up demand that means that stock levels are basically non-existant. this is great for the company, though not necessarily for the consumer, as this means waiting for your MBP.

Now, there is no doubt that the MBP/iMac/mini would be much better sellers if they could run windows. At the moment the problem is related to Microsoft, not Apple. The only way we'll get a nice easy way to boot or virtually run windows is if Apple work with Microsoft to do it, and this is not going to happen. Microsoft will bring virtual PC to the intel macs but don't expect it to happen soon; or be quick. People might say that Microsoft still sell a license, but actually dual-booting will also make people (who didn't before) realise how much better Mac OS X is than XP or even Vista beta, so Microsoft would be wary, as now with VPC running virtually they have an excuse for the slow performance, but if was supposed to be native and still sucked relatively then Apple's reputation goes up.

barstard.

[demallien]

...
Where Apple is caught in the same position as OS/2 is this: By making your operating system a superset of another (what IBM tried with OS/2 vis-a-vie DOS/Windows), then yes you do get the benefit of running the other guy's applications PLUS your own applications. However, you get caught in two traps:


I've heard this comment about OS/2 sooooo many times now, and yet there is a very important difference between what happened with OS/2 and a Windows-capable Mac. WIth OS/2, you could run Windows apps "out-of-the-box". No installing of a VM, no installing of Windows, it was just compatible, that's all.

The Mac will never offer this. If you want to run Windows on a Mac, you have to pay for a Windows license, you have to either set-up dual-booting or buy a VM, and then you have to install Windows. For the vast majority of users, this is too much of a hassle. They'll just run MacOSX, UNTIL they absolutely MUST have a specific Windows app. And then the option will be there for them.

If you think at the number of people that use IE despite it's numerous, well-publicised security flaws, you'll understand the power of default software. As long as the Mac can't "do" Windows out of the box, it won't suffer the fate of OS/2

[demallien]

Now, there is no doubt that the MBP/iMac/mini would be much better sellers if they could run windows. At the moment the problem is related to Microsoft, not Apple.

Hmmm, you know, the more I think about it, the more I think that Apple doesn't give a damn about fighting with Windows. Apple wants to own your AV experience, not your work desktop. It's the trojan horse into the home. First there was the iPod, now the boombox and the MacMini that basically can dump to your TV all of your TV shows bought through iTunes sitting on your real computer, using Bonjour. TV on demand, it's the future.

Then, the next time someone wants to buy a computer, they may, just may ask themself if they want their computer to be compatible with the thing at work, or compatible with their home entertainment network.

[janstett]

Why would you want to run windows on a mac? Isnt that the whole point of switching? To get away from windows. People are totally missing the point of owning a mac in the first place. :rolleyes:

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. What's wrong with the best of both worlds? The simple fact is the Mac doesn't have every application most people need, especially in the business world. Believe me, my boss tries with his PowerBook really hard, but there are just times he has to admit defeat and grab his PC notebook. So if you're going to insist on all-or-nothing in that case, it will be nothing that you get.

[janstett]

I don't think Steve wants to mess around with Windows--it takes away his ability to control the user experience.


Let me roll my eyes into my head. Ah, the mystical Uuuuuuser Expeeeeerience. The Zen of one button computing, disembodied menu bars, and closing windows not stopping your applications.


Furthermore, Apple will continue to gain market share simply by making superior products. Allowing normal consumers to run Windows easily on macs would be very counterproductive.


Riiiiiight, so the reason Apple's superior products havn't lead them to anything greater than 5% of the market in the past 26 years would be.... what, exactly? You're a newbie to the OS wars, I take it.

[janstett]

No. It seems to me that a better solution would be to press for a Mac version of VirtualDub... but thats just me. And I may be retarded, as you have already implied :rolleyes:

Dude, Apple can't even get freaking Adobe to port their applications on a timely fashion. You're saying EVERY APPLICATION VENDOR including open source projects and very small vendors is just supposed to jump and do a Mac version?

HELLO?!?

WAKE UP.

It ain't gonna happen. Have you ever written software or read a book describing what's involved? Writing cross-platform code is HARD. Harder, more time intensive, and more EXPENSIVE than writing just for your single target platform. Seriously, look at all th software that exists on the PC, it's IMPOSSIBLE for all that to be rewritten for the Mac, especially when most pragmatic software houses are going to look at the Mac's pathetic 5% market share and walk away laughing. Office for the Mac can get you most of the way towards interoperability in a Windows world, but even then it comes up short. Just for starters the lack of MS Project and Visio will torpedo the Mac in any development organization. MS maintains a beachhead on the Mac front and they don't seem interested in getting the FULL Office suite over to the Mac -- no Outlook, no Access, no Project, no Visio. Now, if MICROSOFT, a company that already has SOME of its apps on the Mac, won't go all the way and get them all there; if Adobe, which makes(made?) its bread and butter off the Mac market won't hurry up and get universal binaries out for another YEAR; what drugs are you on to think everybody should just start writing Mac apps with no apparent reason to do so?

The fact is there are lots of good applications on Windows. Sorry, it must upset you to hear that. Lots of good apps that simply don't exist, or don't have reasonable alternatives, on the Mac. Then let's not mention the games, the Mac gets the good games 18 months after the PC has them if at all. Therefore you still need (a) a PC, or (b) compatibility with a PC.

If I had to live with a Mac as my only computer, I couldn't do it. The Mac is a luxury, not a neccessity.

So, for that reason, I would like to have dual boot there. So I could use OSX but still have the parachute option to bail into XP/Vista when I have to. Plus, I want control over my machine. So what if I want to put XP/Vista or Linux on there? What about when the machine is 5 years old if I want to put Fedora or Ubuntu on there and use it for some other purpose? My MacBook Pro may not always run OSX, I'd like to have the options to do whatever I want.

[super mini (mac]

Once you get a taste of that OS X goodness, why would you even want to dual-boot into Windows?


to use the better version of msn messanger and be able to use a cheeper web cam instead of apple £99.01 cam which i dont doubt is very good, but tooooo expensive:o

other than that who needs WINDOWS? apart from ppl in houses who want to look out, then they could see the APPLEs flurrish on the trees. lol:D

[sushi]

From my understanding of dual booting, you would have to have the 2 OSes on the same HD. While its possible to run Windows on x86 Mac hardware by itself, its not the same thing when you try to run it in the presence of OS X. OS X has several security features that would need to be bypassed inorder for the system to boot. An OS 9/Windows combination is more likely to work because OS 9 has less security features than OS X. I'm trying to say its not as easy as you make it seem.
This is correct in that you have two or more OSes on the same HD, but usually the HD is partitioned for each.

For example, I may have 3 partitions as such:
- Partition A --> Win2K English
- Partition B --> WinXP English
- Partition C --> WinXP Japanese

When the computer starts, you select which OS you want to boot into via the Boot Loader.

Running Windows via VPC is a completely different animal. In this case VPC is running Windows much the same as OS X is running Classic. Yes, there are some differences but overall concept is similar.

Now if the new x86 Macs can dual boot, that would mean when you start up some sort of Boot Loader would ask you which OS you want to boot into.

Personally, I see benefits for this (dual booting) as well as running Winders via VPC. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

One big advantage of VPC is the ease of restoring your image if you are playing around with your PC. Once your PC is set up, you backup the VPC HD image. Then you experiment, load a virus, whatever. Oops. Now your VPC HD is bad. No worries. Exit VPC, delete the VPC HD image, then copy your back up and reboot. Very quick and easy. In fact, much easier than restoring Winders on a PC.

Anyhow, I am really looking forward to the day when I can dual boot and run Window via VPC at a much faster speed.

[sushi]

I upgraded the 100 GB 4200 RPM disk in my D600 to a 100 GB 7200 RPM (HTS721010G9ST00).
Any experience with the 120GB HDs.

The reason that I ask, is I need to turn my PB15 into Apple for fixing.

Currently have an 80. Was thinking of upgrading to a 120 while there.

[super mini (mac]

This is correct in that you have two or more OSes on the same HD, but usually the HD is partitioned for each.

For example, I may have 3 partitions as such:
- Partition A --> Win2K English
- Partition B --> WinXP English
- Partition C --> WinXP Japanese

When the computer starts, you select which OS you want to boot into via the Boot Loader.

Running Windows via VPC is a completely different animal. In this case VPC is running Windows much the same as OS X is running Classic. Yes, there are some differences but overall concept is similar.

Now if the new x86 Macs can dual boot, that would mean when you start up some sort of Boot Loader would ask you which OS you want to boot into.

Personally, I see benefits for this (dual booting) as well as running Winders via VPC. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

One big advantage of VPC is the ease of restoring your image if you are playing around with your PC. Once your PC is set up, you backup the VPC HD image. Then you experiment, load a virus, whatever. Oops. Now your VPC HD is bad. No worries. Exit VPC, delete the VPC HD image, then copy your back up and reboot. Very quick and easy. In fact, much easier than restoring Winders on a PC.

Anyhow, I am really looking forward to the day when I can dual boot and run Window via VPC at a much faster speed.


i was under the impression with the duel booting that you could load a fully active osx aswell as a fully active (and not vpc) version of windows, if you cant run a fully operative copy of windows and only as vpc, why not just buy vpc for your normal power pc enabled mac?

[sushi]

Um. No. I work at a place in which IT only allows windows machines. I cannot use my mac at work as a result. If I had a Macintel that could run windows - and it has to be Windows 2000 - they would let me set it up.

This isn't a question of loyalties or correct vs incorrect platforms. It is about keeping a computer system that works well for me, but being able to use it at work with the requirements for a specific kind of system.
And for the IT folks, having only one platform to support is much easier and helps them ensure that you have a virus/trojan/worm free environment.

So if the x86 Macs can run Windows natively that would help those poor souls who much work in a Winders environment.

Hopefully, Microsoft will update the new version of VPC to be able to do this more easily. Meaning run Winders via VPC in Mac OS X but apear to be running Winders directly. Things like MAC addressing, IPs, and such.

[sushi]

i was under the impression with the duel booting that you could load a fully active osx aswell as a fully active (and not vpc) version of windows, if you cant run a fully operative copy of windows and only as vpc, why not just buy vpc for your normal power pc enabled mac?
I have no idea what you mean. Sorry.

AFAIK, a dual boot x86 Mac is not in the wild. If it is, please show me as I would like to learn more about it.

My example above was a tripple boot on a PC (which I have done many times.) The most I've done is a quad boot. Usually each OS must be on it's own partition to install/operate correctly.

Here is what I would do if I could dual boot an x86 Mac.

Partition A --> Mac OS X
Partition B --> Windows XPSP2

I would also load VPC with Windows XPSP2 on my Mac OS X partition.

Why you ask?

Well if I want to boot Windows directly I can. However, I must reboot to change OSes which takes a lot of time. Plus I cannot run both at the same time.

With VPC loaded on Mac OS X, I can also run Windows at the same time as Mac OS X and go between the two without rebooting which saves time depending on my needs.

Also, VPC can run multiple OSes. So I can have a VPC image for each of the following if I wanted to test something:

DOS
98SE
Win2K
WinXP
Linux
etc.

My main complaint with VPC is that it is slow. Microsoft improved it over Connectix, but still it is slow. Hopefully Microsoft will improve the speed of VPC dramatically for the x86 Mac platform. That would be sweet.

I hope this answers your questions somewhat.

[janstett]

Hmmm, you know, the more I think about it, the more I think that Apple doesn't give a damn about fighting with Windows. Apple wants to own your AV experience, not your work desktop. It's the trojan horse into the home. First there was the iPod, now the boombox and the MacMini that basically can dump to your TV all of your TV shows bought through iTunes sitting on your real computer, using Bonjour. TV on demand, it's the future.

Then, the next time someone wants to buy a computer, they may, just may ask themself if they want their computer to be compatible with the thing at work, or compatible with their home entertainment network.

Do you realize Apple is late to this party and is bucking industry standards? Bonjour is a proprietary technology much like UPnP (Universal Plug and Play) which several dozens of companies support. There are devices out there from dozens of vendors -- audio clients, A/V clients, Network Attached Storage, PC servers -- that already do this and have been doing it for more than 4 years. Microsoft is already there (XBox 360, Windows Media Connect). Where is Apple's AV client? Is a $600 Mac Mini supposed to be it?

Even in the "connected home", Apple is going to be fighting with Microsoft. Even though Microsoft's strategy is flawed versus Apple's iTunes/iPod integration, MS is playing within industry standards (UPnP) and already has a client server system out there (Windows Media Connect, XBox 360). It's also interesting to see how the content folks will fall. Steve has the charm and industry connections to get video on iTunes. But iTunes' FairPlay DRM is a joke. Microsoft is becoming the defacto standard for DRM like it or not. There are ALREADY movie download sites offerring feature film downloads using MS's DRM (Starz, Movielink). People are lining up behind Microsoft DRM.

The fact that (1) they're not playing with UPnP standards, and (2) lack completely an AV client show that either they aren't serious about it, or they are insisting on an impractical Apple-only solution. The way AirTunes works is retarded -- there is no local UI for controlling playback of your media. You need a computer to control your remote playback, which is plain old stupid.

Apple doesn't care about the "digital home" unless there is a Mac in the picture. In this way, they are exactly like Microsoft -- they want everything in the digital home to be driven by a PC.

[janstett]

What is the point of using a Mac if you have to run Windows on it?

Or the corrolarry, what's the point of having a Mac if software you need won't run on it?

[janstett]

I've been out of the apple scene for ages though, so I don't even know the answer to this -- but can Apples see networked NTFS drives?

When accessed as a share, it doesn't matter, the host PC abstracts it from the client.

Mac OS X can mount NTFS drives locally, but in read-only mode.

[janstett]

The day Microsoft creates a .net framework compatible with OSX (haha) is the day I can completely 100% use Mac only.

You'll definitely be interested in this:

Portable .NET: http://www.southern-storm.com.au

Much like MONO on Linux, it puts the .NET architecture on the Mac. You're on your own for the integrated development environment but you can find that anywhere.

I recommend "Cross-Platform .NET Development using Mono, Portable.NET, and Microsoft.NET" by Easton and King.

[janstett]

SOOOO, Everyone seems to think that the MBP is going to be the cure for all that ails them? Once you truly go Mac, you should never look back. There is nothing more gratifying than to know that the rest of the world is languishing in the muck of Micro$uck and all of it's widely felt shortcomings, while you can easily answer them with, "I have not needed any 3rd party apps, my computer does NOT lock up, get viruses, worms, or seem to be affected by malware.

Sigh, a blind zealot... Windows has a lot of great apps, and isn't so bad. I have two Macs -- a MacBook Pro 2.0 GHz and a Mac Mini 1.42GHz G4. But I also have lots of other computers -- a Pentium D Extreme as my main desktop, a Linux box, a 2.5GHz P4 Gateway running OS X, an Ultraportable Thinkpad X40, a monster HP P4 3.2 laptop, a Thinkpad A22p that's my download mule, a home theater PC, a MAME PC.

My Mini locks up at least once a month (I just had to power it down because it wouldn't wake up from a sleep; I leave it on all the time). There are many sites that Safari just won't work with. It has been fried already once under warranty, drive controller and main board were toasted. And OSX is only "secure" because people with ill will don't bother with it -- yet. That doesn't mean OSX is immune. If anything, its byzantine BSD underpinnings mean it is technologically MORE vulnerable at the core than Windows or System-V based Linux distros.

What I like best is that it just works, which makes it much easier for me to do my work. I would rather have 5 apps that work properly, predictably, and reliably, than 15 million that do not work at all".

Does it "just work"? What about all those web sites that won't work with Safari? What about the confusing user interface -- the disembodied menus, the fact that closing an app window doesn't terminate it like it should, etc? What about the fact that there is no easy place to see all the applications you have installed ala Microsoft's start menu? Is digging in the Applications folder user friendly? If all you ever do in the world is covered by those 5 apps you have, great. But that's not most of us.

Does anyone know of one Windoze machine zealot?

Actually, yes, there are plenty. They just tend not to be as blindly devoted as other zealots -- be it Mac OS X, BeOS, Linux, OS/2. Zealots have gone up against Microsoft's offerrings for years. And they always LOSE. If you doubt Windows zealots exist, just check the usenet groups like comp.sys.mac.advocacy, etc.

Brand loyalty that rivals and perhaps surpasses even Harley-Davidson should mean a lot. (I have an Apple sticker on my motorcycle helmet!)

Sounds like you're the exact kind of guy the $99 iPod case is aimed at. Did you place your order yet? That's exactly why I don't use any of the white Apple stickers I have, I don't want to be identified as a psychofantic fan boy.


Remember, I once thought I disliked Mac's. After 15 seconds of thinking different my life has never been the same. Honestly.

The flip side is, this is the problem with getting "switchers". They've seen the other side, and after hearing all the nonsense from the fanatical zealots, they realize things aren't as bad as they thought.

I know the Mac's warts. I know where the bodies are buried. I know the white fence is a lie. But I still use it, along with XP and Fedora Core 4.

[janstett]

I've heard this comment about OS/2 sooooo many times now, and yet there is a very important difference between what happened with OS/2 and a Windows-capable Mac. WIth OS/2, you could run Windows apps "out-of-the-box". No installing of a VM, no installing of Windows, it was just compatible, that's all.

Not entirely true. When IBM shipped OS/2, they had to pay Microsoft a royalty for including Windows inside it. They later pared this out and two different version shipped -- one with Windows, one without Windows. "Warp for Windows" comes to mind. The one without Windows would "find" your existing Windows install and make use of it. That way IBM could avoid paying Microsoft the licensing fee on the OS.

But anyway, yes, perhaps my point has become obscured. Apple has no "out of the box" compatibility strategy, as you point out. However, the point is that Apple has a problem getting apps developed and the question of somehow including Windows compatibility comes to focus, especially with the Intel transition. I'm simply laying out the pitfalls of the choices.

[janstett]

AFAIK, a dual boot x86 Mac is not in the wild. If it is, please show me as I would like to learn more about it.


People have done it with the OSX86 DTKs. But not so far with an Apple EFI box.

[sel1965]

I hate to tell the poster that is complaining about the MBP being too hot! I had mine on my lap working during Criminal minds and CSI New York not a problem no more hot then my PB was. I do notice it getting warmer when the battery is charging and plugged in other than that it's perfectly normal. No more so than any other laptop.

[sushi]

People have done it with the OSX86 DTKs. But not so far with an Apple EFI box.
Understand.

I want to see the first dual boot iMac or MacBook set up.

Still waiting it looks like... :(

[jaydub]

When accessed as a share, it doesn't matter, the host PC abstracts it from the client.

Mac OS X can mount NTFS drives locally, but in read-only mode.
Cool, thanks for the info. :)

[rickag]

.....
the fact that closing an app window doesn't terminate it like it should, etc?
My opinion is this is a feature not a wart. :)

.....
What about the fact that there is no easy place to see all the applications you have installed ala Microsoft's start menu? Is digging in the Applications folder user friendly?
And Microsoft's start menu is also the quit menu???

Not completely intuitive, but drag the Apps folder to the dock. Control click/right click and they appear. And some people actually prefer to locate some apps in folders besides the Apps folder. I personally like this capability. [/QUOTE]

I'm nitpicking you, how much you can decide. :)
Now if Apple will address some of the more annoying finder behaviors. :)

[ro2nie]

Speaking of the MacBook Pros
Osx86project.org claims that Windows XP boots on a MacBook Pro!

See it for yourself here (http://www.mathcaddy.com/windowsxpbootsonamac!!!!1/)

[jaydub]

Speaking of the MacBook Pros
Osx86project.org claims that Windows XP boots on a MacBook Pro!

See it for yourself here (http://www.mathcaddy.com/windowsxpbootsonamac!!!!1/)
haha I really didn't want to laugh at that, but...

[Meemoo]

I'd much rather prefer games made natively for the mac, but it just doesn't happen.

I built a PC this September because my iBook could barely run Unreal Tournament. When Apple announced the new iMac, I found a buyer for my PC and monitored the OnMac contest ect, now I am PC-less, my iMac will be arriving "by the 17th" and I found out the ONE GAME, I really wanted to work (Command and Conquer: Generals) is virtually unplayable on the intel iMac, not only that but we are nowhere near close.

So here I am the week before Spring Break, my PC buddies have a few LAN parties ready and I can't attend.

I was really hoping they would figure out how to book XP from a external hard drive. This would be great because you wouldn't have to worry about partitions ect. I think it would be a great business if anyone ever gets XP/Vista to run NATIVE on the Mac to sell external harddrives preloaded with Windows. Hell, I'd pay $300 for one right now.

[janstett]

And Microsoft's start menu is also the quit menu???


No no no, I agree with you on that point, that the Start menu is kind of a "junk drawer" of functionality.

But my point is novice users (such as my wife) don't understand why you can't easily find something once it's installed; or why some apps show up on the dock and not all of them. To her, if it's not on the dock it isn't on the system. That's what the "All Programs" menu on the Start menu is for. I'll try that trick with the App folder, though :)

There are things like this that annoy my wife, a novice; and some that annoy me, an expert. The system-wide menu bar is confusing to a novice because of its context requirements, and I find it annoying because it puts the application's functionality in two places, its window AND the menu bar (inconsistant when you consider the use of toolbars that is so common). Having to click on the desktop (if any of it is showing) to get finder-related tasks in the menu bar drives me nuts. Not being able to make any given application completely full screen irritates me -- if I'm concentrating on a single task in a single application, I want it taking 100% of the real estate and not have my desktop poking through. My wife gets confused by the min/max/close buttons being on the left, I wish Apple would make it configurable for Windows users to move it to the right (they already made this concession with the up/down buttons on the scroll bars, I always thought it was awkward and illogical to have both buttons together).

Anyway, now I'm just nitpicking :)

[MacsomJRR]

Mine just started shipping from Shanghai!!! :D :D :D

[DougTheImpaler]

I really hope that the MBP has caused increased demand. Not that I want to see Microsoft or Windows completely disappear - we need to keep them in a museum to see how unfriendly an OS can be - but a more level playing field will spur on more competition, I think.

[Multimedia]

Well, I hope the 17" MBP whenever it finally reaches us will include Expresscard 54 so we can add two FW800 ports to it. I also think it needs a HD-DVD SuperMultiDrive to compete with the new Toshiba 17" Qosmio™ G35 AV Portable with HD-DVD (http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/cmod.to?seg=HHO&coid=-30600) just being released in Europe now for only $2400. I don't see shelling out $3k for a top of the line 17" MacBook Pro without a HD-DVD OR Blueray optical drive inside. It's way too close to that difusion time to settle for an old DL "Super"drive as "state-of-the-art". Toshiba has thrown down the gauntlet and Apple better follow if they want to sell a lot of 17" MBPs. Ignoring HD-DVD or Blueray this year at the top of the line would be completely LAME.

If you study the specs of this computer, there is nothing Apple can't do better faster right now. Note: This includes Microsoft Office and Works and a TV tuner built in with TWO SATA HDs inside. On the downside, it's only running a 1.83 GHz Core Duo and slower 533 ram than the 15" MBP 667 ram. So the Mac will be running faster, but it's gotta have most of what the Toshiba has to get me excited enough to pull the trigger. I am thinking HD Optical minimum to get me on board. Dual SATA drives would be another minimum for me now. :p

[mcmillan]

Maybe one day Apple will be the king of marketshare and the world would be better. Maybe. :D

[DeathChill]

Maybe one day Apple will be the king of marketshare and the world would be better. Maybe. :D
Well, that will never EVER happen. Apple wants to keep everything closed and tied strictly to what they make.

One of the reasons Microsoft is the king of marketshare is because of the fact that you can run Windows on any x86 hardware you have lying around. It also has amazing legacy support so that you can use applications compiled in Windows 95 or ones compiled in Windows ME, which is a lot more then you can say for Mac OS X. You go from 10.3.9 to 10.4.0 and some apps no longer work.

[Flowbee]

Well, that will never EVER happen. Apple wants to keep everything closed and tied strictly to what they make.

One of the reasons Microsoft is the king of marketshare is because of the fact that you can run Windows on any x86 hardware you have lying around. It also has amazing legacy support so that you can use applications compiled in Windows 95 or ones compiled in Windows ME, which is a lot more then you can say for Mac OS X. You go from 10.3.9 to 10.4.0 and some apps no longer work.

Apple sells more computers than Microsoft does. Apple is essentially a hardware company that makes software for its hardware. Microsoft is a software company that produces software to run on other people's hardware.

Comparing Apple's marketshare to Microsoft's is pretty meaningless.

[sel1965]

Apple sells more computers than Microsoft does. Apple is essentially a hardware company that makes software for its hardware. Microsoft is a software company that produces software to run on other people's hardware.

Comparing Apple's marketshare to Microsoft's is pretty meaningless.

This is the most logical statement I have ever read!

[janstett]

Apple sells more computers than Microsoft does. Apple is essentially a hardware company that makes software for its hardware. Microsoft is a software company that produces software to run on other people's hardware.

Comparing Apple's marketshare to Microsoft's is pretty meaningless.

Yes, but this is changing.

Microsoft has always "made" hardware (their mice and keyboards are excellent), and they've dabbled into things like digital phones, speakers, etc. Usually their devices are made by a company on their behalf with their supervision on design. But let's not forget the XBox and XBox 360 which most definitely represent Microsoft directly, and on a consumer electronics level no less.

Microsoft has always put out "reference designs" for their platforms and it's up to the OEM to bring it to fruition (Windows CE / PocketPC, and more recently the WMA portable players). However, Microsoft realizes it can't compete with Apple's iPod/iTunes integration, and all of its OEMs are running around like idiots with no coordination. Therefore, I expect Microsoft to assert more control and possibly brand its own players.

Apple has always had its strengths in software (going back to early Quicktime). Mac OS on a PC has always been a dream and chance for Apple to build marketshare; now it is a grey-market reality with the switch to X86. I still wonder if Steve will unleash OS X on the general market in time and blindside Microsoft. The existence of QT on the PC, the existence of iTunes, this leads me to believe the Yellow Box rumors of Apple applications that run on Windows, especially when Apple has spent time and effort on bringing 3rd party applications under the roof. So, I believe Apple may finally be waking up and realizing that software is its strength.

As time passes, Apple will become more like Microsoft, and Microsoft will become more like Apple. My prediction ;)

As long as Apple keeps the death-grip on low-margin hardware, however, I can never see it achieving mass market success. It has to realize that the software is the magic not the hardware. There are signs this may happen but it runs counter to Steve Jobs' past decisions.

[chatin]

Demand has cooled off considerably for macbook pros. I was able to get one without waiting.

Apple has done a great job with everything else on this computer! I like everything except the CPU. It runs hot, and the real world performance is not as good as it could have been, with a well designed single core 64-bit CPU.

[Multimedia]

Demand has cooled off considerably for macbook pros. I was able to get one without waiting.

Apple has done a great job with everything else on this computer! I like everything except the CPU. It runs hot, and the real world performance is not as good as it could have been, with a well designed single core 64-bit CPU.That would be the 64-bit dual core Merom in the Fall. Apple is not going to put single core processors in any portables ever again.

[jacobj]

Demand has cooled off considerably for macbook pros. I was able to get one without waiting.

Apple has done a great job with everything else on this computer! I like everything except the CPU. It runs hot, and the real world performance is not as good as it could have been, with a well designed single core 64-bit CPU.

Please explain how a well designed 64-bit CPU would be better than a 32-bit Dual Core! I am eager to understand what advantages there are to the 64-bit design other than the ability to address more RAM.

I happen to be using a MBP 2.0 GHz as we speak. I brought into work with me today just to configure it to the networks here and it has blown everyone away. A few friends here have AMD 64-bit CPUs in their desktops at home running both Linux and Windows and all of them are blown away by the speed.

[chatin]

I don't know if you noticed how fast your battery drains, but that's one of the advantages of a well designed CPU.

Also, mine is hot enough to keep me toasty warm on a cold winter night. But I'm note sure if this would be an advantage in summer!

I like the MBP, but my cores seem to be dualing. Has anyone else had quicktime stall?

:rolleyes:

[ezekielrage_99]

The first step to converting them is to make them realize that they needed it. When I switched 3 years back it was quite a leap of faith to spend $3000 on an OS that I didn't know. If I would have had the option of installing windows I would have done it far sooner.


I totally agree with you on this point, I made the Apple switch about 4 years ago and until you believe you really need it people wont make the switch to the dark side. Now if I had the option I wouldn't look at another Windows PC ever again (discreet please bring out 3D Studio MAX for Apple).

OSX on a Apple, I still can't see why you'd buy a superiour product and put XP or Vista (if it's EVER released) on an Apple. Anyway most of the major software packages you can get Mac versions of.

[janstett]

I like everything except the CPU. It runs hot, and the real world performance is not as good as it could have been, with a well designed single core 64-bit CPU.

Once again, being 64-bit for the sake of being 64-bit does not mean faster.

Which is faster: adding these two numbers:

0000000000000000000000000000001 +
0000000000000000000000000000010
-----------------------------------

or adding these two numbers:

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 +
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010
------------------------------------------------------------------------

the result is the same.

[Multimedia]

Demand has cooled off considerably for macbook pros. I was able to get one without waiting.

Apple has done a great job with everything else on this computer! I like everything except the CPU. It runs hot, and the real world performance is not as good as it could have been, with a well designed single core 64-bit CPU.That is just not so. :rolleyes:

Demand has not cooled off for MBP at all. Supply has caught up with the huge demand. And not everywhere. I'm still waiting for the 17" MBP with ExpressCard 54.

There is always going to be an advantage in having two or more cores onboard. The ability to multitask with two or more cores is what makes OS X so great. I've been on two and now four for three years now and I can testify that even two is not enough when you get into serious multitasking like I do. I look forward to the day when there is a mobile Kentsfield for our MacBook Pros.

There is certainly no advantage to 64-bit single core that a pair of 32-bit dual cores won't hose. Almost everything is written for 32-bit anyway. The idea that programmers are all of a sudden going to get 64-bit religion is absurd. Main thing about 64-bit is our ability to have more RAM for the 32-bit apps to share.:)

[Surreal]

I'm still waiting for the 17" MBP with ExpressCard 54.


you too eh?

for at least 3 years i have been lusting after a brand new apple comp. now that i have the money i am waiting for the computer to be released. (i would get the 15, but lack of FW800 and having only a Expresscard/34 and less screen all mean i wait before buying.)

[RichP]

Well, I hope the 17" MBP whenever it finally reaches us will include Expresscard 54 so we can add two FW800 ports to it. I also think it needs a HD-DVD SuperMultiDrive to compete with the new Toshiba 17" Qosmio™ G35 AV Portable with HD-DVD (http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/cmod.to?seg=HHO&coid=-30600) just being released in Europe now for only $2400. I don't see shelling out $3k for a top of the line 17" MacBook Pro without a HD-DVD OR Blueray optical drive inside. It's way too close to that difusion time to settle for an old DL "Super"drive as "state-of-the-art". Toshiba has thrown down the gauntlet and Apple better follow if they want to sell a lot of 17" MBPs. Ignoring HD-DVD or Blueray this year at the top of the line would be completely LAME.

If you study the specs of this computer, there is nothing Apple can't do better faster right now. Note: This includes Microsoft Office and Works and a TV tuner built in with TWO SATA HDs inside. On the downside, it's only running a 1.83 GHz Core Duo and slower 533 ram than the 15" MBP 667 ram. So the Mac will be running faster, but it's gotta have most of what the Toshiba has to get me excited enough to pull the trigger. I am thinking HD Optical minimum to get me on board. Dual SATA drives would be another minimum for me now. :p

That thing is a brick! Over 10lbs and 2 inches thick.

[Multimedia]

you too eh?

for at least 3 years i have been lusting after a brand new apple comp. now that i have the money i am waiting for the computer to be released. (i would get the 15, but lack of FW800 and having only a Expresscard/34 and less screen all mean i wait before buying.)I'm thinking we might get it after a NAB announcement Sunday April 23rd. This is the day that all the NAB exhibitors have their press events before the expo opens Monday. If they don't announce it there, then they are not ready. I'll be surprised if they don't by then. But I may wind up waiting for the Merom 64-bit Rev.B version in September. :)

[pianodude123]

I dont know why Apple's stock has been falling so much...I would be 100% more likely to buy a MBP if it ran windows. There are some apps that i need that only run on windows. Also, apps for windows are usually cheaper than those for mac.

[YunusEmre]

I dont know why Apple's stock has been falling so much...I would be 100% more likely to buy a MBP if it ran windows. There are some apps that i need that only run on windows. Also, apps for windows are usually cheaper than those for mac.

Well for me it makes no difference. I will not be running Windows on my Mac. I am trying to get away from windows. For me that is one of the best parts of owning a Mac, it runs Mac OS, not Windows.

[chatin]

Once again, being 64-bit for the sake of being 64-bit does not mean faster.

Which is faster: adding these two numbers:

0000000000000000000000000000001 +
0000000000000000000000000000010
-----------------------------------

or adding these two numbers:

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 +
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010
------------------------------------------------------------------------

the result is the same.


Maybe I'm just old school. I think Intel should try and get one 64-bit core working right before they shoot for dual. Dual is overhyped. I don't agree there are real world benefits for a hot and power hungry CPU adding the numbers the way the 386 did it in 1987!

[oaksteez SM]

I don't know why all this rawkus is about...windows on a mac.??!?!?
that concept is strange AND foreign to me right now.yet interesting to see two OS's operating on a MAC..
so..WILL DELL START RUNNING OSX SOON?

[Multimedia]

Maybe I'm just old school. I think Intel should try and get one 64-bit core working right before they shoot for dual. Dual is overhyped. I don't agree there are real world benefits for a hot and power hungry CPU adding the numbers the way the 386 did it in 1987!
Chatin, there is NO WAY that a single core processor is an appropriate solution in the year 2006. Unless you are only writing with a word processor, the need for dual core processors is essential computing 101. I tried to do work with two processors and my dual 2.5 G5 was brought to its knees. My Quad is too slow. You are dreaming in a world of yesterday to not understand the need for more than one processor at a minimum in all computing environs. As for keeping them cool. Merom in September will be 20% cooler - lower power need - and 64-bit dual core running faster than Yonah. So there is no corelation between evolution of power and temperature. :p

DUAL IS NOT OVERHYPED. Dual is OVERDUE. Quad is what is needed.

[Multimedia]

I don't know why all this rawkus is about...windows on a mac.??!?!?
that concept is strange AND foreign to me right now.yet interesting to see two OS's operating on a MAC..
so..WILL DELL START RUNNING OSX SOON?No. It's not about OS X running on other brand Intel computers. It's about OS X and Windows both running on Macs and ONLY on Macs. ;) :)

There are a large number of verticle market applications that are only written for Windows and will never be written for Macs. We will gain a significant number of switchers to Macs from brand X Intels who need to run those apps but would rather be running Mac apps the rest of the time and at the same time as the non-Mac apps they need to run for work.

[YunusEmre]

There are a large number of verticle market applications that are only written for Windows and will never be written for Macs.

Never say never. If the Macs take a bigger chunk of the market anybody who cares about their market share will have to consider supporting Macs also. Until they do some of their customers will have both and I can speak for myself, I would be very happy to switch to Mac and have no Windows at all. As it happens I can, and I will switch to Mac completely by the end of the year.