Over 1000 Universal (Intel) Applications? and Windows on Mac?

[MacRumors]

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

EETimes reports (http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181501931) on comments by Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer at the Morgan Stanley Semiconductor and Systems Conference.

Oppenheimer reports that there are 1000 Universal Applications today for the Intel Mac OS X. Older applications need to be recompiled to run at full speed on the latest Intel-based Macs. Previous Macs used the PowerPC processor. As Apple transitions to the an all Intel-based product line, native Intel applications may be one of major hurdles preventing many customers from upgrading.

At the Morgan Stanley conference, Oppenheimer sought to reassure the market that major Mac applications are on track to be optimized for the Intel-based Mac platform. "We have commitments from our major developers," he said. "They will release universal versions of their applications--not only Adobe, but also Quark and Microsoft."

Apple's list of Universal Binaries (http://guide.apple.com/action.lasso?-database=MacOSGuide&-layout=cgi_search&-response=/ussearch/hitlist_universal.html&-op=bw&binaries=Universal&-maxRecords=20&-search) does indeed list over 1000 entries, though its hard to tell how many of them represent significant applications. Meanwhile, Mac Guides: List of Universal Binaries (http://guides.macrumors.com/List_of_Universal_Binaries) and Mac Guides: Universal Binary Games (http://guides.macrumors.com/Universal_Binary_Games) provide a more selective list of shipping Universal applications.

In a related story, ThinkSecret reports (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0603adobecreativesuite3.html) that Adobe is working hard to release Creative Suite 3 (Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, GoLive, Acrobat) as a Universal Binary by the end of the year. While initially planned for 2007, Apple and Adobe are making a push to be complete by the end of 2006.

Oppenheimer also took this opportunity to restate that Apple "will do nothing to preclude Windows from running on Intel-based Macs" which is consistent with previous comments (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060111025256.shtml) by Apple officials. As mentioned earlier today (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060308073846.shtml), some analysts feel that Apple could expand their marketshare significantly when easy booting into Windows becomes available on the new Intel Macs.

[cait-sith]

Soon enough, we'll be transitioned.

[Lord Blackadder]

I will need a dual boot Mac for my grad work...so I hope they aren't just whistling dixie. I don't want to buy two computers (though I will if necessary).

[Lertie32]

Whoohoo! I'm like the fourth post! Sweet!

Seriously though... has anybody TRIED to run Windoze on one of the Intel Macs? I've heard nothing about this actually being done and how well it does or doesn't work. One of the creepiest things I ever saw was Windoze booting on my G4 via VirtualPC, but I confess that running Windoze on very rare and required occasions would be useful. And if we can get more switchers, then it's a good thing, right?
:cool:

[PlaceofDis]

i suppose we'll have to wait for Vista to see if that will run on the new Intel Macs as i don't think it will be possible with XP.

i hope the switch to Universal Bianaries continues to be a success. a lot of work still needs to be done though.

[QCassidy352]

it's exciting that adobe is trying to have CS3 ready in UB for the end of this year. The transition is going pretty smoothly so far, I'd say...

[Felldownthewell]

When CS3, FCP in UB and Call of Duty II UB are all out, I will be in program heaven.

[evilgEEk]

Even if you can't get Windows to boot up on a Mac, I would assume the new versions of VirtualPC would be good enough. I would think VirtualPC could run near native speeds on any Intel-based Mac.

[dontmatter]

Whew! Even if it's not a huge advance in the date, Adobe going universal sooner is wonderful news. With macs known as (and being) creative professional computers, it is absolutely key to get photoshop et. al. on universal binary ASAP. Lack of intel chips after the transition was announced was a big liability for apple, and so is the lack of high end universal software now that intel is out. When CS3 (as well as FCP, etc that we know will come) are universal apple will have no reason to go with PPC, and lose a major liability.

And 1000 apps is great, no matter how small some of those apps might be. Means software writers are making the transition, which means consumers will, too.

[ChrisA]

I will need a dual boot Mac for my grad work...so I hope they aren't just whistling dixie. I don't want to buy two computers (though I will if necessary).

Do you really need a "dual boot" or would some other method of running Windows be as good? How about if you were able to run MS Windows inside a window on the Mc OS X desktop and when needed expand that window to use the full screen completely hiding the Mac desktop. I think this (running Windows along side Mac OS) is actually better than dual boot but others (mostly gammers) desagree.

If you want "windows on the Mac OS Desktop" you can have it today and there are several options.

[nagromme]

I think it will be good for Apple when Macs can run Windows. Most people won't buy Windows for their Mac, but it's VERY useful to have the option for those with no other choice--and it's a GREAT safety net to make other people comfortable with trying a "scary" new kind of computer. They may not do it, but they'll like knowing they could.

Re Adobe: they never said 2007. Their estimates ALWAYS made 2006 a possibility, and 2007 a worst case.

Now how about word on Director please :) With ability to make Projectors for Windows, OS 9, PPC OS X, and Intel OS X :)

As for 1000 apps and which are "significant"... anything that helps YOU is significant to you :)

[EricNau]

Windows on a Mac...

Really don't know how I feel on this one.
Apple might be able to boost their market share by a lot, but at the same time this might bring a lot of the Windows problems to Apple. :(

[mike3k]

I don't want to reboot to run Windows. I'd love to see VMWare available for the Mac, so Windows can run along with OS X at the same time.

Wine would be even better, if they could improve the compatibility so most Windows software will run with it. Wine doesn't require windows - it emulates a Windows environment and Windows applications will share the screen with OS X rather than running in a separate window. Unfortunately the current version has very limited compatibility.

[Lord Blackadder]

Do you really need a "dual boot" or would some other method of running Windows be as good? How about if you were able to run MS Windows inside a window on the Mc OS X desktop and when needed expand that window to use the full screen completely hiding the Mac desktop. I think this (running Windows along side Mac OS) is actually better than dual boot but others (mostly gammers) desagree.

If you want "windows on the Mac OS Desktop" you can have it today and there are several options.

Emulation really won't be an option since I'll be running CAD-like software that is fairly hardware intensive. I actually have a craptastic homebuilt PC that will probably do the job but in the near future I will need a laptop, and I'd prefer to be able to have my cake and eat it too.:)

[treblah]

So has anyone tried booting Vista now that the February CTP is out?

Why couldn't Apple leave that little BIOS emulator in the EFI? :mad:

1st person to ask why I'd want to boot M$ Winblows on a Mac gets a virtual kidney punch.

[dukebound85]

Whoohoo! I'm like the fourth post! Sweet!

Seriously though... has anybody TRIED to run Windoze on one of the Intel Macs? I've heard nothing about this actually being done and how well it does or doesn't work. One of the creepiest things I ever saw was Windoze booting on my G4 via VirtualPC, but I confess that running Windoze on very rare and required occasions would be useful. And if we can get more switchers, then it's a good thing, right?
:cool:


Haha please explain why it is creepy. As much as I like apple, microsoft does have advantages and believe it or not, some features in windows I like are better than macs. The taskbar comes to mind. The whole microsoft is stupid argument is akin to saying colorado state university hates university of colorado and vice versa.....just plain silly.

[Doctor Q]

I wonder if I could pay extra to get a Mac that can't run Windows. I'd feel safer that way. :rolleyes:

[ChrisA]

Even if you can't get Windows to boot up on a Mac, I would assume the new versions of VirtualPC would be good enough. I would think VirtualPC could run near native speeds on any Intel-based Mac.

You re right. Windows running under QEMU on an Intel Mac is reported to be very fast. The boot time was said to be "seconds" faster then many PC users are used to.

[X5-452]

I'm curious. Would Adobe also need to release a new version for 10.5 compatibility, or would they somehow be able to make CS3 compatible with it OTB?

[bevo]

how would it bring windows problems to the mac.

As I said in another share. What harm could having windows boot on a mac cause?

People hesitant to buy a mac because of OSX might do so now because even if they aren't happy with OSX, they can always work with windows. It can boost hardware sales.

Ever read Consumer reports? Apple has some of the highest rated tech support and dependability marks out there.

I think OSX is a major inhibiting factor to people getting a mac. We all know OSX is a better OS than Windows, but most lay people are comfortable with what they know.

Its taken them soo long to use and understand using a computer, that switching to a different operating system seems outlandish.

My parents would never buy a mac right now because they like windows, have alll the programs setup in windows and understand how to use it. OSX requires them starting from scratch in a way.

Being able to dual boot would ease the transition.

No way they'd go and buy a 2nd computer just to run osx.

[Sayer]

Java apps need no recompiling generally, and there are a lot of java apps out there in niche markets (middleware clients, education, corporate).

As long as I can play Runescape (java-based MMORPG) on the iMac Core Duo that's coming tomorrow, I don't care what CPU is inside.

[AidenShaw]

Re Adobe: they never said 2007. Their estimates ALWAYS made 2006 a possibility, and 2007 a worst case.
But then, The Steve said that some MacIntels would be out "by WWDC'06" - and when they appeared in January the headlines read "Intel six months early" and the fanbois swooned.

OTOH, since WWDC'06 will be in August, I guess it was 8 months early.... :D

[ChrisA]

I don't want to reboot to run Windows. I'd love to see VMWare available for the Mac, so Windows can run along with OS X at the same time.
.

If that's what you want. then look at QEMU. (google will find ti)

It is almost identical to VMWare Workstation except even better because it can not only emulate an X86 machine but it can do a PPC or SPARC. I've seen QEUM running on Intel/Linux emulating a PPC running MacOS. Other combinations including the one you want work.

QEMU will run any VMWare virual image file.

[jacinto45]

As the proud owner of an Intel iMac 2.0 GHz, I most eagerly await the following UBs:


A way to play Windows Media natively. (I hate it too, but it's necessary.) This will come only from http://flip4mac.com/ --what's the delay??
Ditto for Real Player
Drivers for M-Audio USB devices. They had drivers for FW immediately; what's the holdup?


The Intel iMacs really are awesome, though; so fast, and most things that most people use already are universal.

EDIT: Oh, also EyeTV.

[TaKashMoney]

Hmm... Eric, you bring up an interesting point... a virus infecting Windows on a Mac... I suppose antivirus/antimalware software would be needed just like any PC. However, I doubt it would be able to affect how you run OSX. With windows comes great security issues, but I agree that an option of dualbooting would do wonders to increasing the number of switchers - esp. with gamers. This is definitely an interesting situation. I wonder how microsoft will respond. I love Apple's efforts at maintaining OSX as a Mac only operating system. I think the integration of hardware and software is why we love Apple the way we do, but will MS sell itself out to its only competitor? Would apple ever sell Macs preinstalled with both os's? I'm not sure if we could even consider that "switching", more like "adding". Windows users would be adding OSX. In which case OSX marketshare would undoubtedly go up. It will create an interesting statistic because there would no longer be a direct comparison. That is, every new Mac sold would not directly mean one less windows user. It would only mean one more Mac user.

[winjer2k]

Haven't you guys heard? Windows XP Boots on a Macbook Pro (http://www.mathcaddy.com/windowsxpbootsonamac%21%21%21%211/)!

[blueflame]

OOPS, you took the words right out of my mouth!
andreas


Hmm... Eric, you bring up an interesting point... a virus infecting Windows on a Mac... I suppose antivirus/antimalware software would be needed just like any PC. However, I doubt it would be able to affect how you run OSX. With windows comes great security issues, but I agree that an option of dualbooting would do wonders to increasing the number of switchers - esp. with gamers. This is definitely an interesting situation. I wonder how microsoft will respond. I love Apple's efforts at maintaining OSX as a Mac only operating system. I think the integration of hardware and software is why we love Apple the way we do, but will MS sell itself out to its only competitor? Would apple ever sell Macs preinstalled with both os's? I'm not sure if we could even consider that "switching", more like "adding". Windows users would be adding OSX. In which case OSX marketshare would undoubtedly go up. It will create an interesting statistic because there would no longer be a direct comparison. That is, every new Mac sold would not directly mean one less windows user. It would only mean one more Mac user.

[Chef Medeski]

Hmm... Eric, you bring up an interesting point... a virus infecting Windows on a Mac... I suppose antivirus/antimalware software would be needed just like any PC. However, I doubt it would be able to affect how you run OSX. With windows comes great security issues, but I agree that an option of dualbooting would do wonders to increasing the number of switchers - esp. with gamers.
Well, the thing is its not like Windows automatically comes with viruses, you actually have to do something. I think as long as people go on internet and download stuff with their Macs there will not be an issue of viruses because they won't come into contact with your XP. Simple. Everything works better on Mac, except for what doesn't work so why would you contract a virus under Windows. The only exception would be games.

[john123]

Emulation really won't be an option since I'll be running CAD-like software that is fairly hardware intensive. I actually have a craptastic homebuilt PC that will probably do the job but in the near future I will need a laptop, and I'd prefer to be able to have my cake and eat it too.:)

I think your impression of emulation suffers a lot from what you've seen of existing emulation solutions. In this case, there is not nearly as much stuff to "emulate." The existing architecture is there -- it's just a case of using it appropriately. This is what VMWare has done for the Windows and Linux worlds, and the speed penalty is minor.

[dberg]

When the PowerMacs come out with the Sassoman or whatever that have the Intel Virtualization technology builtin to it, this will create a huge demand for apple hardware. The intel virtualization technology allows two independant operating systems to run virtually under one cpu. This will surely solve the problem of people who "need" to run some of those business apps in a windows environment yet giving OSX too.

dberg

[AidenShaw]

This is what VMWare has done for the Windows and Linux worlds, and the speed penalty is minor.
Don't forget Virtual PC for Windows and Virtual Server - they also do the Windows (or Linux) VMs running on Windows, with a similar (usually minor) performance hit.

Microsoft has the apparent advantage here. They can do a VMM (Virtual Machine Manager) on OS X (VPC/Mac), and they can Windows and Linux guest machines. They need to port the PPC VMM from OSxPPC to OSx86, and remove the instruction set emulator needed on PPC and insert the VM layer from the Virtual PC (Windows) product.

VMware has to write an OSx86 VMM, and create the OSX GUI and other management interfaces.

[AidenShaw]

When the PowerMacs come out with the Sassoman or whatever that have the Intel Virtualization technology builtin to it, this will create a huge demand for apple hardware. The intel virtualization technology allows two independant operating systems to run virtually under one cpu. This will surely solve the problem of people who "need" to run some of those business apps in a windows environment yet giving OSX too.

dberg
Yonah already has Intel's VT inside. (http://www.intel.com/ca/pressroom/2006/0105.htm)

It doesn't do you any good without a VT-aware VMM to actually run the virtual machines.

[p0intblank]

It's great to see so many applications making the transition so quickly. The number one app on my list is of course is the CS3 suite. :) End of the year release date... that's not too bad at all. I can wait that long.

[nagromme]

But then, The Steve said that some MacIntels would be out "by WWDC'06" - and when they appeared in January the headlines read "Intel six months early" and the fanbois swooned.

OTOH, since WWDC'06 will be in August, I guess it was 8 months early.... :D
Not sure what that has to do with Adobe or name-calling, but I agree--I often repeated the key "BY" in Steve's phrase :) And I always expected the first Intel Macs at MWSF06.

[mdriftmeyer]

does indeed list over 1000 entries, though its hard to tell how many of them represent significant applications...

I don't know what sort of applications people use for productivity but applications like Create from Stone Design are most certainly significant and powerful.

http://www.stone.com/Create_Screenshot.html

[AidenShaw]

Not sure what that has to do with Adobe or name-calling.
You said "Re Adobe: they never said 2007. Their estimates ALWAYS made 2006 a possibility, and 2007 a worst case." right after a comment that Adobe had advanced the date.

[JDOG_]

You said "Re Adobe: they never said 2007. Their estimates ALWAYS made 2006 a possibility, and 2007 a worst case." right after a comment that Adobe had advanced the date.

Well, according to thinksecret (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0603adobecreativesuite3.html)...we could have it by the end of the year. I just hope they don't rush it!

[nostaws]

where is maxxuuss? Hey you got OS X on non apple hardware! How about getting windows running on intel macs? What a way to get a bunch of apple users on your side.

Oh and I love my macbook pro!

[muffinman]

once windows is booted successfully for mac, mac will be king!

[boncellis]

once windows is booted successfully for mac, mac will be king!

This speaks to my relative apprehension--with Windows on Apple hardware, will the future Macintosh OS development suffer? As much as I love the iPod, and the Macintosh, when it comes down to it, the one thing I don't think I could live without is OS X. I just hope Apple keeps up its development as they have to this point!

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you.

[~Shard~]

This dual-booting would indeed allow me to get rid of my PC, but I don't know how I feel about having both OSes on my Mac.

In general, whether it be Windows or another OS, to me it seems like having two OSes on my machine would bog it down a bit and would take up a lot of extra space. I like things lean, mean and minimal when it comes to my Mac.

Also, there's the whole security issue as other posters have pointed out as well. I would have to load AV software, AdAware, etc. on the Windows piece, and how would that affect things? What if a I catch a virus while running Windows which does something OS-agnostic to my computer, like erase my HDD or something? Then it won't matter if OS X is secure or invulnerable, if my Windows partition is to blame.

And wouldn't you need BIOS and EFI coexisting in some way?

I guess I just question the overall efficiency of the setup.

Perhaps another way to go after the Windows crowd is to allow them to legitimately install OS X on their PCs. Hmm, with a Leopard preview at WWDC this year, wouldn't it be cool if Leopard could run on PCs natively, as well as Macs? Just as Vista is released (i.e. Tiger ;)), Apple launches Leopard, blowing Vista out of the water - and it's available for PC too. :eek: :cool:

[reyesmac]

I thought I heard that Microsoft recently pledged to continue making Office mac for the next 5 years. Could this be a new deal Apple made with them so Microsoft will not release a Mac compatible OS until the 5 years are up? I think any Windows that runs on the Mac in the next few years will be an unsupported hack and nothing legit.

[boncellis]

...Perhaps another way to go after the Windows crowd is to allow them to legitimately install OS X on their PCs. Hmm, with a Leopard preview at WWDC this year, wouldn't it be cool if Leopard could run on PCs natively, as well as Macs? Just as Vista is released (i.e. Tiger :)), Apple launches Leopard, blowing Vista out of the water - and it's available for PC too. :eek: :cool:

I agree that such an event would be remarkable, and very welcome, but I return to something that Mr. Wozniak said a few months ago about Apple being primarily a hardware company. I guess I tend to agree with him, that for all the elegant and seamless software Apple produces, it really is a means to sell more hardware. Am I wrong?

[Yvan256]

Even if you can't get Windows to boot up on a Mac, I would assume the new versions of VirtualPC would be good enough. I would think VirtualPC could run near native speeds on any Intel-based Mac.

VirtualPC would also be more useful. I don't know anyone with dual-boot computer who restarts his computer for a single task, then boot back into the other OS... It's counter-productive!

Want Windows on your Mac? Get VirtualPC, forget this dual-boot thing...

[~Shard~]

I agree that such an event would be remarkable, and very welcome, but I return to something that Mr. Wozniak said a few months ago about Apple being primarily a hardware company. I guess I tend to agree with him, that for all the elegant and seamless software Apple produces, it really is a means to sell more hardware. Am I wrong?

I don't think you're wrong, but I still wouldn't downplay the "elegance and seamlessness" of OS X, as you put it. I think many Windows users would rather use OS X if they only knew how cool and powerful it is - something like my suggestion would encourage this opportunity. I think there are many people out there who could care less if they were running on PC hardware or Mac hardware as long as they could use OS X. Not everyone of course, but some people. ;) And now that Macs are looking more like PCs on the inside anyway with the Intel transition this is becoming less of an issue in many respects... :cool:

[Stridder44]

A way to play Windows Media natively. (I hate it too, but it's necessary.) This will come only from http://flip4mac.com/ --what's the delay??
Ditto for Real Player
Drivers for M-Audio USB devices. They had drivers for FW immediately; what's the holdup?
[/LIST]


Why can't RealPlayer die and do what Microsoft did with WMP for OS X (e.i., flip4mac)? I don't like Microsoft, but I hate Real.

[mrplow]

You re right. Windows running under QEMU on an Intel Mac is reported to be very fast. The boot time was said to be "seconds" faster then many PC users are used to.

it's really slow...

sure, it's probably 3-5 times faster than virtual PC on a G5... but it doesn't compete with a 4 year old 800mhz athlon I have in the other room. (Is about on par with a 500mhz pentium 3 laptop though!)

[Nermal]

So has anyone tried booting Vista now that the February CTP is out?

It doesn't work. The DVD doesn't appear in the Startup Disk pane, and you can't boot from it.

[PubGuy]

Couple of things: If you are woried about virus's and spyware, this is where Virtual PC, Q, QEMU, VMware all have an advantage because Windows runs in a "sand box". WINE on the other hand is closer to your actual hardware and doesn't have a drive image, per se.

As I write this, I'm on my new Macbook Pro (yeah, baby!). Its a great machine. In anticipation of the machine being delivered, I downloaded a copy of "Q" from http://www.kberg.ch/q/ ... at the bottom of the page, on the right side, you can get the latest "unstable" build. When I first installed and then loaded windows on my G4, it was SLOW. However, I knew that was the case and I created and loaded up a fresh install of Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP Pro. Once my Macbook Pro arrived, I copied the drive images over and launched. WOW. What a difference! Both drive images were much more responsive than the Virtual PC 7 images i was using on the G4. The save and restore only takes seconds. When they finish this, add the virtualization engine, and clean the interface, this will absolutely smoke Virtual PC ... and its FREE. Go open source!!!

[Meemoo]

I really would like Microsoft to just release software like Rosetta that would let a user load applications within OS X. Or hell even lisence Direct X to Apple.

[jbh001]

Why couldn't Apple leave that little BIOS emulator in the EFI? :mad:

No. Let me translate for those of you that haven't got it yet.

Apple: If you want to run Windows on our hardware, you are on your own. We won't stop you, but don't expect us to bail you out if you can't get it to work. You can always use Mac OS X and get Virtual PC when it is upgraded to Universal Binary.

Microsoft: If you want to run Windows on Apple's non-standard hardware implementation, you are on your own. We won't stop you, but don't expect us to bail you out if you can't get it to work. You can always use Mac OS X and get Virtual PC when it is upgraded to Universal Binary.

I think it would be in Microsoft's best interest to do some quick editing of Windows Vista to get it to run on Mac hardware.

It is already in Apple's best interest to take no action to either actively enable or disable Windows from booting/running on their hardware. The ball is in Microsoft's court, not Apple's. And Microsoft doesn't have much incentive to modify Windows Vista to make this happen--although they do have some incentive. (What make Vista compatible with Macs and risk angering Dell, HP, and the rest? Miscrosoft may be dumb, but I don't think they're that stupid.)

If an iMac will boot to Windows natively, Apple still wins for the hardware sale. If not, Apple wins on the sale of its hardware and OS.

[pubius]

Man, am I the only person who is really, really frightened of a dual boot Mac (running windows). And not just for security issues. Anyone who thinks this will not affect development for Mac OS is really not thinking this through. Seriously, are windows people the only ones posting in here? On top of that, all applications that are cross platform (adobe, macromedia, etc.), man, i don't like the way they feel in windows, i don't like the way they operate, it's just ugh. And why are we so wanting all these windows people to join Macs anyway? They only bring dangerous habits, a false sense of computer knowledge, and middle-aged teen angst. The few applications that don't exist on a Mac are not reason enough for this. And so much has become cross-platform. I'd rather pressure the companies/developers to create the needed cross-platform apps (that i don't even need) than have a dual boot Mac. And since when is Apple about risking everything just to round up the windows people and more money? Let the Ipod (and itunes, quicktime etc.) be the introduction, it's done a great job so far. Give 'em time, they will come around. More and more every day. And those that don't, oh well. Forget gamers, they will not be switching. They are by far the most heavily rooted. They are building their pc's bottom up. I know this sounds like a lot of generalizations, but come on, if 85% of computer users are on windows machines, and 85% of people are fairly uninformed on most everything, there's gotta be almost complete overlap. Ha! I know this will get people riled up, but really it wasn't meant to, I am just worried, really worried.

[boncellis]

I just feel the need to say that I am looking forward to what everyone has to say in response to the above post...

I'm excited to read the responses tomorrow instead of paying attention in class!

[danielwsmithee]

No way they'd go and buy a 2nd computer just to run osx.
That is exactly how I fealt about my parents as well. Then their computer died a few months after the new iMac G5 came out. Let's just say they couldn't resist the iMac. It was a bumpy transition at first but now they are running smooth and not looking back. My mother actually uses email now, she never did before because every few months the HD needed to be reformated because of all the virii

[danielwsmithee]

I think it would be in Microsoft's best interest to do some quick editing of Windows Vista to get it to run on Mac hardware.
I really don't think Microsoft cares that much honestly! They get huge profits from Office for Mac, what is it like $399 normally.

On the windows side sure Windows is like $199 but no one ever pays that much because people get it preloaded on their machines. My guess is they get what $50-60 per copy from Dell and HP. Also Office is usually bought in the PC world for discounted rate either through Dell or HP when you buy your machine or through the company you work for.

That is not to say people don't get better deals for Office on a Mac, but I really don't think there would be much profit difference for Microsoft if they modified Vista to run on a Mac. They are allready going to charge Mac users for Office, Virtual Pc (with a License to Vista).

[floatingspirit]

some analysts feel that Apple could expand their marketshare significantly when easy booting into Windows becomes available on the new Intel Macs.

I would buy a Macbook so fast and ditch the dell I'm stuck with at work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:p I'd never use a PC again, Ever!

[excalibur313]

Oppenheimer also took this opportunity to restate that Apple "will do nothing to preclude Windows from running on Intel-based Macs"

What a smug bastard! He says that but what he is thinking is "I know exactly how this can be done but I won't tell you because I don't want that lower class software running on my premium hardware." Hell he could say the same damn thing about the G4 except more people will believe him in this case because the odds are a lot higher.

EDIT: Before I get flamed let me make it clear that I do think that OS X is the best OS on the planet but I just think that it is pretty arrogent to be insinuating that windows can be run on a computer when in reality no one can figure it out and it was probably built with this in mind.

[Attonine]

I was searching around on the web the other day to find out any information about Oracle 10g being ported over to OS X on intel. I found this on macNN:

"The company's (Oracle) been thrown a bit of a bouncer now that Apple has proclaimed its desire to start using Intel processors instead of the PowerPC, but according to Oracle's product chaps it's no big deal because Mac OS on Intel is that much closer to the core Linux build structure than Mac OS on PowerPC."

I presume this applies to all applications that have Unix/Linux versions. Hopefully this will mean that developers will be more inclined to port applications which have Unix/Linux versions to run on OS X intel natively. Most peoples' preferred solution.

Out of interest I looked at Autodesk`s (the manufacturers of AutoCAD) website, it seems that AutoCAD is Windows only (is this really true, no Linux version?). So for some users it looks like they will be forced to continue using a Windows OS.

[dubnluvn]

A little OT...ok a lot OT...not only would i like a Mac to be able to run 'some' windows apps...I woul REALLY like a black iMac...mmmmm....black!

[Tupring]

Apple is now just another PC company. :mad: :(

[Tupring]

some analysts feel that Apple could expand their marketshare significantly when easy booting into Windows becomes available on the new Intel Macs.I would buy a Macbook so fast and ditch the dell I'm stuck with at work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:p I'd never use a PC again, Ever!But if you want to use Windoze, why not just stick with the Dull? :confused:

[gnasher729]

So has anyone tried booting Vista now that the February CTP is out?

Why couldn't Apple leave that little BIOS emulator in the EFI? ]

That BIOS emulator is not something you "just leave in". You have to write it and test it first, then add it to EFI. That costs money.

So Apple is actually saying the truth when they say they did nothing to prevent Windows from running; but they would have had to _add_ stuff to make Macs Windows bootable, and they didn't.

Seems that Apple is not interested in making Macs Windows bootable. Maybe that will change in the future.

[gnasher729]

Also, there's the whole security issue as other posters have pointed out as well. I would have to load AV software, AdAware, etc. on the Windows piece, and how would that affect things? What if a I catch a virus while running Windows which does something OS-agnostic to my computer, like erase my HDD or something? Then it won't matter if OS X is secure or invulnerable, if my Windows partition is to blame.

If dual booting is done properly, then your Apple computer with say a 250 GB harddisk would either act as (for example) a Macintosh with 160 GB harddisk, or a PC with a 90 GB harddisk; your choice at boot time.

The PC part would have all the vulnerabilities that any PC has; if a virus can reformat a PC harddisk, then your 90 GB harddisk would be reformatted. The 160 GB Macintosh part would be completely untouched. All assuming that the dual boot is done properly.

You would have one advantage: You would have much less need to access the Internet on the PC, because you can do that on the Macintosh. That would greatly reduce your risk of any virus infection.

[gnasher729]

But if you want to use Windoze, why not just stick with the Dull? :confused:

Take a look at one of these Dull big piles of ugly black plastic. Then take a look at an iMac or a Mac Mini. If you decided you want to run Windows, on which computer would you rather run it?

[ScottB]

Man, am I the only person who is really, really frightened of a dual boot Mac (running windows). And not just for security issues. Anyone who thinks this will not affect development for Mac OS is really not thinking this through. Seriously, are windows people the only ones posting in here? On top of that, all applications that are cross platform (adobe, macromedia, etc.), man, i don't like the way they feel in windows, i don't like the way they operate, it's just ugh. And why are we so wanting all these windows people to join Macs anyway? They only bring dangerous habits, a false sense of computer knowledge, and middle-aged teen angst. The few applications that don't exist on a Mac are not reason enough for this. And so much has become cross-platform. I'd rather pressure the companies/developers to create the needed cross-platform apps (that i don't even need) than have a dual boot Mac. And since when is Apple about risking everything just to round up the windows people and more money? Let the Ipod (and itunes, quicktime etc.) be the introduction, it's done a great job so far. Give 'em time, they will come around. More and more every day. And those that don't, oh well. Forget gamers, they will not be switching. They are by far the most heavily rooted. They are building their pc's bottom up. I know this sounds like a lot of generalizations, but come on, if 85% of computer users are on windows machines, and 85% of people are fairly uninformed on most everything, there's gotta be almost complete overlap. Ha! I know this will get people riled up, but really it wasn't meant to, I am just worried, really worried.
That's a good point, and I see the logic but honestly I don't think the ability to dual boot will not for a second hinder Mac OS X application development. I do however agree with simular points made on in relation to WINE, especially if in the future it is shipped installed with Mac OS X. Let me make my stance clear though, I am definetly not in favour of booting windows on apple hardware.

[bigandy]

maybe adobe/macromedia will surprise us all and release UB versions of all their software next month and surprise us all :rolleyes:

well we can hope, but at least it's good to know they're getting on with the job.

[Stridder44]

Apple is now just another PC company. :mad: :(


Oh whew! And I thought they were a tupperware manufacturer!

[AidenShaw]

Take a look at one of these Dull big piles of ugly black plastic. Then take a look at an iMac or a Mac Mini. If you decided you want to run Windows, on which computer would you rather run it?
Gee, for $1400 I can get an XPS200 (3 GHz dual-core, 1 GiB RAM, 250 GB disk, 128 MiB Radeon PCIe card, MCE with TV tuner and PVR, and a 19" LCD). No black plastic (white and silver), and it's about the size of three 15" laptops stacked together.

http://img.dell.com/images/us/segments/eep/BEX_high.jpg
*The largest system is pretty close to the size of the PMG5.


The LCD looks a lot better than the ungainly white plastic iMac monitor - trim and sleek without that ugly white bar across the bottom.
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/images/products/large/3007WC4.jpg

[Arnaud]

Mmm, honestly, I'm not so much in favor on Windows-on-Mac. Good points were made in this direction by other posts.

I'm amused to see so many hard-core Mac users who were spitting on Windows up to one year ago, and now cannot wait until Windows is available on a Mac. What is it? Because it's in a box with an apple on it, it's suddenly allowed? Like, not the forbidden fruit anymore? (Funny, being about Apples...)

I like OsX above Windows because of technical issues, not by religion, so the portability of Windows on Mac does not change anything about the problem.

Now some practical questions:
- who would want to pay two licences a year for a single machine? When was the last time you had to buy a Windows XP "Home" licence ? Didn't you faint at the cash register ?
- why would Windows-on-Mac be so much better than Windows-by-itself? Which magical powers will make Windows-on-Mac suddenly stable, less prone to viruses and spyware, suddenly compatible with all drivers ? Or the other way around, will you really want to spend 2 hours a day to have your PC software work ? I spent enough time with a PC to know I don't want another one.
- "people used to Windows don't want to change, but they will if they run Windows on a Mac". How so ? They will boot (if they can) under Windows, and use Windows. How do they come to discover OsX ?

The only good reason I've found is for some Windows-only apps, like professional CAD software, and it will come at the price of a double licence for the system software.

Reasons to worry: if Macs can run under both systems, software companies might want to provide only one version, and in that case that would be Windows (due to the market share). Just imagine Adobe deciding to run Windows-only, because Macs can run them too: cheaper for Adobe, maybe even for the customer (allowing the purchase of Windows). In the long run: a great OsX, with no great software to use there.

Maybe that's the Great Plan of Apple ? Slowly forgetting OsX, and introducing Windows xpLife (with of course xpTunes and a new xpPod).

Last comment: Microsoft still needs Apple as a system developper though, to avoid monopoly problems, no?

[dagger01]

Why is everyone so obsessed with dual booting?!?! It's a pain in the ass!!! Me, I'm waiting for VPC or VMware to be ported so I can run all my Linux and Windoze apps in virtual machines, at NATIVE speed!!! People are missing the point here. If you have a set of Intel underpinnings, and virtualization you are no longer emulating an Intel PC with VPC!!! Hello, this is important to realize. Wake up!!! To hell with dual booting, give me three or four VM images of my choice and I'll run the annoying Windows apps or the needed Linux apps on a machine that if it breaks, crashes, whatever, doesn't bring down my Mac.

I've done the dual boot thing...it's annoying!!! Virtualization is the way to go. Native performance, better fault tolerance, and without the annoyance of having to shut everything down to switch environments/OSs.

[~Shard~]

If dual booting is done properly, then your Apple computer with say a 250 GB harddisk would either act as (for example) a Macintosh with 160 GB harddisk, or a PC with a 90 GB harddisk; your choice at boot time.

The PC part would have all the vulnerabilities that any PC has; if a virus can reformat a PC harddisk, then your 90 GB harddisk would be reformatted. The 160 GB Macintosh part would be completely untouched. All assuming that the dual boot is done properly.

You would have one advantage: You would have much less need to access the Internet on the PC, because you can do that on the Macintosh. That would greatly reduce your risk of any virus infection.

Thanks for the insight on this, that makes sense. And excellent point about the Internet - you're right, that probably would cut down on the risk significantly. :cool:

[dagger01]

Take a look at one of these Dull big piles of ugly black plastic. Then take a look at an iMac or a Mac Mini. If you decided you want to run Windows, on which computer would you rather run it?

Ok, I have to comment on this. What you're talking about is the difference in form, not function. I think the market has already, and very clearly stated that they don't care what a computer looks like as long as it does what they want it to do. Hence, the 90%+ market share of Windows PCs. People buy PCs for the applications, the tools or the toys. Most people could care less what it looks like.

To add something to your argument, it would be better to address quality of products. Apple continues to set the standard for quality control in their products. Now, that's not to say they are perfect. I think everyone remembers the 5300 series laptop batteries, the iPod scratching thing (duh, people, it's plastic for crying out loud!), and a few others. But, when you compare those incidents with how many DOAs, bad power supply problems, wrong configurations shipping, CD/DVD drives going bad in the first year you get from Dell on a regular (annual) basis, Apple's products are better designed and last longer. Hell, we had 1155 Power Macs delivered and over 90 days only had 65 give us any kind of problem. Then, we got 1145 Xserves and had less than 50 of them cause problems. To compare to Dell, the problems I listed above were all contained in a 52 machine order that was received in one shipment. More than one third of the Dell machines had to be serviced in the first six months of ownership.

As for the booting Windows topic, see my other post.

[interlard]

Screw "booting into Windows" or "waiting for Vista".

The current batch of Windows emulators (for PowerPC) let you run the little M$ runt in a window (or full-screen) with faked BIOS environments.

All we need is a similar environment for Intel Macs.

Not the current batch of re-compiled emulators, mind. These still run Windows slowly because they are just a universal recompile of the PPC emulators. Essentially translating Intel code to Intel code. Which is pretty dumb even for the Windows world.

Any takers?

[dernhelm]

You would have one advantage: You would have much less need to access the Internet on the PC, because you can do that on the Macintosh. That would greatly reduce your risk of any virus infection.

I disagree here. If I'm booted into Windows to work with applications only available there, then I'm not going to reboot into the Mac just to surf the web. I'll be surfing the web from whatever OS I'm booted into at the time. Or worse, from whatever OS I left up the last time I worked on the PC (since I almost never power my PC's down).

Dual-boot is useful for me (as a developer and a gamer) since there are times when a virtualized OS simply doesn't cut it for testing or speed. But for most people, the prospect of having to keep rebooting into different OSes is going to be a bit of a pain.

A virtualized version of windows that allows me to switch back and forth to the Mac OS is much more compelling from a user-experience standpoint.

[Arnaud]

A virtualized version of windows that allows me to switch back and forth to the Mac OS is much more compelling from a user-experience standpoint.
And for copy-paste :)

[macusque]

Well, if anything I'd much prefer to be able to boot OS-X on a PC than Windows on a Mac...

The only "issue" I see in the Apple world is the complete absence of desktop machines in the price range between 900 - 1200 $.
For example an hardware similar to that of the Intel iMac but without the LCD and with better expandibility (Ram, HD and VideoCard).

The main reason to stay with Apple is the OS, not the pretty hardware.

[Stridder44]

Gee, for $1400 I can get an XPS200 (3 GHz dual-core, 1 GiB RAM, 250 GB disk, 128 MiB Radeon PCIe card, MCE with TV tuner and PVR, and a 19" LCD). No black plastic (white and silver), and it's about the size of three 15" laptops stacked together.

http://img.dell.com/images/us/segments/eep/BEX_high.jpg
*The largest system is pretty close to the size of the PMG5.


The LCD looks a lot better than the ungainly white plastic iMac monitor - trim and sleek without that ugly white bar across the bottom.
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/images/products/large/3007WC4.jpg

You're on your own there buddy

[g.x]

Even if you can't get Windows to boot up on a Mac, I would assume the new versions of VirtualPC would be good enough. I would think VirtualPC could run near native speeds on any Intel-based Mac.

Why would you assume this? Even though the processor is one for which Windows was designed, the OS (Windows) is still running as an application (a big, clunky one at that) inside OS X.

All applications take up resources. Big, huge applications (like an entirely separate OS) take up more resources.

Running Windows within OS X will never reach native speeds. Running it as a dual boot, of course, will (because it is, in fact, native).

Remember that running a Windows program within OSX is running an application (the program) within an environment (Windows) under an OS. This extra layer is what will always slow it down, just like Classic was slower than a pure OS installation.

There may be a Rosetta-like solution (translation on the fly) but it will suffer performance hits just like Rosetta.

[Peace]

Gee, for $1400 I can get an XPS200 (3 GHz dual-core, 1 GiB RAM, 250 GB disk, 128 MiB Radeon PCIe card, MCE with TV tuner and PVR, and a 19" LCD). No black plastic (white and silver), and it's about the size of three 15" laptops stacked together.

http://img.dell.com/images/us/segments/eep/BEX_high.jpg
*The largest system is pretty close to the size of the PMG5.


The LCD looks a lot better than the ungainly white plastic iMac monitor - trim and sleek without that ugly white bar across the bottom.
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/images/products/large/3007WC4.jpg


Now Aiden..come on...

I went to Dull and did the configure the computer and for what you listed the price was $1804 not $1400

X600 graphics card??
iMac has the X1600


The Dull LCD you posted was actually not widescreen so I added the only widescreen they had BTO which was a 20"..

[D*I*S_Frontman]

I would not trust a "dual-boot" system. While I would HOPE that a Windows virus might only attack the Windows partition of the systems HDD, I am not reasonably assured that an intrepid hacker couldn't find a way to get a read on how big the actual PHYSICAL HDD is--and wipe 'er clean. But I am not a programmer or software engineer--maybe this is just unfounded paranoia.

Also, it seems that the hassle of stopping to reboot when switching from Windows-only apps to internet apps would get old very fast, and not doing so would increase the potential for problems.

I personally would feel much better with OS X running an emulator like VPC. With the new CPU configs, I bet they'll get that program to really scream on a Mac.

Worrying about virus attacks from only one OS seems to make more sense. I'd prefer the OS with fewer known viruses as my main environment. Seeing that the known virus ratio from Windows to Mac OS X is about 25,000:1, that choice is simple.

As a Mac user, I have been spoiled by the relative safety of my OS. I'll never go back. Can't begin to tell you how many times family, friends, and co-workers have had to reinstall Windows due to virus problems. I have owned an original 512ke Classic, an LC, a Performa, a Pismo, a 1.25ghz DPG4 tower, an AluPowerBook, and a Mini over the last 20 years. Viruses contracted? 1 -- the "Scores" virus on my original machine in 1989.

Reinstalls of an OS (other than for upgrade purposes)?

NEVER.

Antivirus software?

NONE (except a brief use of Norton Utilities in '89 to get rid of the "Scores" visus from off of my FLOPPIES!).

In fact, this makes me want to get the last of the quad G5 towers with my next purchase--as PPC is going away, even fewer hackers will bother writing for it. Maybe IBM will cough up another great PPC chip down the road, keeping at least one Apple offering PPC-based for the foreseeable future, thereby maintaining support for the chip in SU's of the PPC version of OS X.

BTW, I am NOT anti-Intel. They look like a far better chip fab partner for Apple, all things considered. But life is just too da@m short to waste even an hour on virus remediation, IMHO, and I fear that CPU similarities and increased marketshare might make hacking OS X (Intel) more enticing.

[Play Ultimate]

Haha please explain why it is creepy. As much as I like apple, microsoft does have advantages and believe it or not, some features in windows I like are better than macs. The taskbar comes to mind. The whole microsoft is stupid argument is akin to saying colorado state university hates university of colorado and vice versa.....just plain silly.

They do. (Currently living outside Boulder) I assume you mean CU Bouder, not CU Denver.
Also UCLA hates USC and Berkeley hates Stanford etc.

[g.x]

I would not trust a "dual-boot" system. While I would HOPE that a Windows virus might only attack the Windows partition of the systems HDD, I am not reasonably assured that an intrepid hacker couldn't find a way to get a read on how big the actual PHYSICAL HDD is--and wipe 'er clean. But I am not a programmer or software engineer--maybe this is just unfounded paranoia.

I agree completely. When using a computer (typing, mousing around or, in the case of an application, running), you are simply instructing the OS to do things. Nothing stops an OS from having access to all the system's physical components...nothing except the OS itself, like in the case of Unix "permissions" and failure to have proper drivers.

I myself have pulled hard drives and plugged them into other systems. Without booting off of them, I've had access to them from running an OS on the drive I did boot off of. Whether or not they can be "read" is one issue (for example, I can't mount a Mac formatted drive on a Windows box). But I can definitely "see" it, reformat it, etc.

I I, a computer user can do it, so can any properly written application (which is, essentially, also a "user" of the OS). Unfortunately, this includes viruses.

My thoughts...a more technical person can probably provide a better opinion.

[Play Ultimate]

Reasons to worry: if Macs can run under both systems, software companies might want to provide only one version, and in that case that would be Windows (due to the market share). Just imagine Adobe deciding to run Windows-only, because Macs can run them too: cheaper for Adobe, maybe even for the customer (allowing the purchase of Windows). In the long run: a great OsX, with no great software to use there.

This is my biggest fear. Why would a software company need to write two versions if the entire marketplace was Windows-compatable?

From what I've read, there are a small handful of products that are not useable on a Mac. I cannot see any advantage to Apple except for possibly an incremental increase in marketshare.

BUT Apple cannot manufacture enough computers now!! What would happen if the demand increased by 50% overnight due to dual-booting?

Just wait for Virtual PC. It will work well enough for those the must use PC apps. And for those that it does not work for, I'm not sure a dual-boot Mac would work either.

[AidenShaw]

Now Aiden..come on...

I went to Dull and did the configure the computer and for what you listed the price was $1804 not $1400
It's Dell, no need to use childish pejoratives.

The $1400 was rounding up...

XPS 200 $1,379

Print Summary


FREE 3-5 Day Shipping & Handling - Online Only!
Limited time offer. [AD] Offer Details

19" Flat Panel Monitor Upgrade Included!
Limited time offer. [AD] Offer Details

FREE 1GB Memory Upgrade!
Limited time offer. [AD] Offer Details

XPS 200

Date 3/9/2006 11:43:59 AM Central Standard Time
Catalog Number 29 Retail 19

Catalog Number / Description Product Code SKU Id

XPS 200:
Pentium® D Processor 830 w/Dual Core Technology (3.0GHz,800FSB) FZ830VH [222-1371] 1


Operating System:
Genuine Windows® XP Media Center 2005 Edition WMCE [412-0688][412-0721][420-4927][420-5460][420-5476][420-5585][463-2282][464-8764] 11


Media Center Enhancements:
Single TV Tuner with Remote Control TVT2 [320-4258] 306


Video Cards:
128MB PCI Express™ x16 ATI Radeon™ X600 SE X600SE [320-4297] 6


Memory:
Featured Upgrade a $60 value! 1GB Dual Channel DDR2 at 533MHz- 2DIMMs 1GB5P [464-5419] 3


Hard Drives:
250GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™ 250S [341-1520] 8


CD or DVD Drive:
8X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability 8DVDRW [313-4124][420-5781][420-5790] 16


Floppy Drive and Media Reader:
No Floppy Drive Included NFD [341-2299] 10


Modem:
Integrated 56K Data / Fax modem IM [313-2823] 14


Monitors:
FEATURED UPGRADE!! 19 inch E196FP Analog Flat Panel E196FU [464-7948] 5


Sound Card:
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio IS [313-2758] 17


Speakers:
Dell AS501PA 10W Flat Panel Attached Spkrs for Analog Flat Panels AS501PA [313-4065] 18


Keyboard:
Dell USB Keyboard EK [310-5324] 4


Mouse:
Dell Optical USB Mouse OM [310-4037] 12


Office Software (not included in Windows XP):
No Productivity Suite - Corel WordPerfect® word processor only COREL [412-0803] 22


Network Interface:
Integrated Intel® PRO 10/100 Ethernet IN [430-0441] 13


Miscellaneous:
Award Winning Service and Support D51CF1 [464-2097] 82


Hardware Warranty:
1Yr Ltd Warranty, 1Yr At-Home Service, and 1Yr HW Warranty Support S111OS [950-3337][950-9797][960-6200][960-8680][983-2207] 29


Anti-Virus/Security Suite (Pre-installed):
PC-cillin Internet Security: AntiVirus, Firewall, Spyware removal 15-months TM15M [420-5639] 25


Dell Digital Entertainment:
Starter Entertainment Pack -Basic digital Music, Photo, and Casual Gaming SEP [412-0856][412-0865] 399


Adobe Software:
Adobe® Acrobat® Reader 6.0 AAREAD [412-0705] 15


Dial-Up Internet Access:
6 Months of America Online Membership Included AOLDHS [412-0687][412-0787][420-3224][420-5256] 37



X600 graphics card?? iMac has the X1600

The x600 is fine for most people. Unlike the iMac, it has a x16 PCIe slot that I can upgrade if I want. I could even skip the card and use the GMA950 integrated graphics.

If I want more graphics or expansion, I could get the mini-tower.

Choice.


The Dull LCD you posted was actually not widescreen so I added the only widescreen they had BTO which was a 20"..
And I actually don't care if it's widescreen or not.

Movies will have letterbox bars regardless of whether you get normal or "short screen".

(The iMac 17" is really a 19" normal screen with the bottom cut off for that big white plastic bar. It's either a wider 15" or a shorter 19", depending on how you think about it.)

[Lord Blackadder]

It's Dell, no need to use childish pejoratives.

I personally would not get an iMac (I'm not a fan of AIO computers), but I would still buy a PowerMac (or whatever it will be called) over your Dell. I agree that the Dell wins (and Dell will ALWAYS win) in the content for money game, but they are simply not made to the same quality standard. Plus, after taking care of two dozen Dells at work for a few years, it is my opinion that Dell's customer service is a bit inferior to Apple's. Also, Dell is strictly mail order/ebusiness, whereas there are Apple retailers/service centers on the ground in my area.

Judging by the sample of Dell's we have at work, they also have a significantly high % DOA. None of the Macs we've bought have been DOA yet.

If I was going to buy a PC spec'd like that Dell, I'd build one. BTW, I have a Dell 2005FPW display, and love it - I just wouldn't blow $1300 on one of their XPS towers. Interesting that they include a PVR - but does it do hardware encoding like the EyeTV?

[Peace]

It's Dell, no need to use childish pejoratives.

The $1400 was rounding up...


You're right..Sorry..BUT

You showed an image of a 20" WIDESCREEN in your post..

Not the 19" regular..

At least be consistant..m'kay?

[Nermal]

The iMac 17" is really a 19" normal screen with the bottom cut off for that big white plastic bar.

We have 19" LCDs at work, and they're 1280x1024. That's the same res as most 17" displays, and the pixels aren't even square! I'll stick with my 17" iMac, thanks :)

[Lord Blackadder]

We have 19" LCDs at work, and they're 1280x1024. That's the same res as most 17" displays, and the pixels aren't even square! I'll stick with my 17" iMac, thanks :)

My brother has one like that...thay're getting very cheap now and are tempting, but I'm glad I spent extra to get my Dell 2005FPW (although I really wish I could have got the 24 incher). A lot of those cheap LCDs are analog only too, which is a waste IMHO.

[AidenShaw]

...but I'm glad I spent extra to get my Dell 2005FPW (although I really wish I could have got the 24 incher). A lot of those cheap LCDs are analog only too, which is a waste IMHO.
OTOH, with a good LCD monitor with good cables, you can be hard-pressed to see the improvement from a digital connection. ("good cables" is very important, lesser quality cables can cause lots of artifacts)

Right now I have two Dell 24" LCDs in front of me. The right one is on a DVI-D cable, the left one is analog (it's connected to an analog 8-port KVM switch).

When someone comes to me complaining that they need a new Quadro card to connect their new 24" flat panel - I just ask them to tell me which of my screens is digital and which is analog....

Those that guess wrong get to keep their old card ;)

[AidenShaw]

Interesting that they include a PVR - but does it do hardware encoding like the EyeTV?
Hardware encoding is a requirement for MCE.

[Lord Blackadder]

OTOH, with a good LCD monitor with good cables, you can be hard-pressed to see the improvement from a digital connection. ("good cables" is very important, lesser quality cables can cause lots of artifacts)

Not just cables - a lot of the cheapo LCDs have not-so-great LCD panels, so I guess I shouldn't just blame it on the interface. But I have two computers connected to my 2005FPW, and I can tell the difference between using the DVI-D and VGA inputs...it isn't bad on VGA but there is definitely a difference.

When someone comes to me complaining that they need a new Quadro card to connect their new 24" flat panel - I just ask them to tell me which of my screens is digital and which is analog....

Those that guess wrong get to keep their old card ;)

LOL, who are you, Mordac the Preventer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordac#Mordac)? :D

[jdechko]

I think it's interesting that CS 3 will require users to have Tiger... maybe they're implementing CoreImage into their filters/plug-ins. That would be sweet. It's also hinted that they may use some stuff from 10.5 (Leopard), so that's interesting as well. I can't wait for WWDC to see what's coming out in 10.5

[pyrophite]

Ok, im sorry, i actually had to register in this forum to make this comment, i normally dont chime in but here's my 2 cents.

People worried about dual booting and viruses cross contaminating OS installs..... have you EVER formatted something via NTFS, and then encrypted it with password protection???? IT'S LIKE FORT KNOX outside the OS itself. Back in the day if you had an encrypted NTFS volume and didnt know the password the only way to gain access was either a linux boot disk that required local access to the hardware itself, or a reformat (which wouldnt have been able to be done from a different dual-booted OS). It's not even VISIBLE half the time. Install XP on an encrypted partition, then boot into another install of XP, you WONT be able to even SEE the partition. Windows isnt perfect, i know that, but one place they really shined is with the NT File System. Sure there are a few small workarounds to get access to the inner workings of an encrypted NTFS volume, but not a single one i am aware of that is able to do it via an OS environment virus. And with that said the worst case scenario is that the dual boot configuration deletes mention of the OSX boot loader, but seeing as i dont know how the OSX boot loader (or whatever the mac equivalent works), i'd assume it was rebuildable anyway like the Microsoft version.

Anyway, if you have reasons of your own to not want to dual boot, that's fine, or why you think im stupid to want a dual boot macbook, that's your own opinion, but if these reasons are based on unsubstantiated fear of a virus infecting a different partition from the XP os..... that's nonsense.

Just my 2 cents.


EDIT: The more i think about it, I suppose some of the fear could come from the fact if someone wanted to share both hard drives in each OS install, so like you had access to all files on the XP volume if you were booted in OSX and vise versa, and i suppose i can concede that point, but heck, if you're worried about that... just keep your files separate, duplicate them, or keep them on an external.

[AidenShaw]

LOL, who are you, Mordac the Preventer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordac#Mordac)? :D
No, I am Κροίσος, he who defends the equipment budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croesus) :eek: