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

[MacRumors]

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

EETimes reports 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 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 and Mac Guides: Universal Binary Games provide a more selective list of shipping Universal applications.

In a related story, ThinkSecret reports 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 by Apple officials. As mentioned earlier today, 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?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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]

Originally Posted by ChrisA

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?

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

[dukebound85]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[ChrisA]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by nagromme

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....

[ChrisA]

Originally Posted by 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.
.

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.