With the switch to Intel processors, will Macs be able to run Windows? How will that work? Will you be able to have both OS's on your Mac at the same time? Also, if Macs will be able to run Windows, what incentive will software developers have to recompile their software to run on the Intel OSX? If a Mac user can't find the software for OSX, they'll just run Windows? I may not have a clue...let me know what you think....
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Macs running Windows...
- Thread starter krunch
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They said that they wouldn't prevent Windows from running on Intel Macs but they didn't say that they'd make it easy. Since the architecture is likely to be such that Mac OS X doesn't run on other x86 machines, it may take some reverse engineering to figure out...or reading the Darwin low-level code.
Yes we did...Spock said:
That's why everybody knows the architecture of the development machine has nothing to do with the Mactel that will ship in the future.
It's just a machine to port applications on, and for the developers to get a major headstart with.
The actual shipping product will cause their usual bundle of issues, especially with the driver development teams -- it's always happened.
I don't see too many people saying the PowerMac G5 with Windows NT shipping from MicroSoft, are XBox 360s.
Which is why you are going to have problems running Windows on Macs.joecool85 said:
Apple not only has no reason to make Macs compatible with Windows, they have an interest in making Macs incompatible with Windows.
If Windows can be run on a Mac with no problems, then getting Mac OS X to run on a Windows compatible PC isn't going to be that hard either.
Besides, the processor is not the deciding factor in compatibility.
And I can give you plenty of examples where this is the case... like NeXT and Apple computers of the early 90's. Both NeXT and Apple were using Motorola's 68040 processor in their systems. Could NEXTSTEP run on a Quadra? No. Could System 7 run on a NeXTstation? No.
PC makers go out of their way to be Windows compatible. Which is understandable as that is their primary OS. But Apple has no such restrictions on it as they make their own OS.
As for getting Windows to run on a Mac, I would guess that someone is going to need to design either a boot loader (based on Darwin) to help run Windows... or someone will design a PCI card that supplies the additional help Windows would need.
I highly doubt that Windows is going to install on an unmodified Intel based Mac when they finally ship.
krunch said:
He's saying that the boxes MS provided to developers for the XBox 360 were just PowerMac G5s running Windows. Which proves that developer boxes are not necessarily the same as the final product (PowerMac+Windows != XBox 360).
I doubt Apple cares either way. If Windows happens to work on a Mac, great. Let a flock of 15,000 birds crap all over your new Ferrari. If Windows happens to not work, then too bad, enjoy the beauty of OSX. I don't think they're going to do extra work to make it run or not run.
RacerX said:Which is why you are going to have problems running Windows on Macs.
Apple not only has no reason to make Macs compatible with Windows, they have an interest in making Macs incompatible with Windows.
If Windows can be run on a Mac with no problems, then getting Mac OS X to run on a Windows compatible PC isn't going to be that hard either.
Besides, the processor is not the deciding factor in compatibility.
And I can give you plenty of examples where this is the case... like NeXT and Apple computers of the early 90's. Both NeXT and Apple were using Motorola's 68040 processor in their systems. Could NEXTSTEP run on a Quadra? No. Could System 7 run on a NeXTstation? No.
PC makers go out of their way to be Windows compatible. Which is understandable as that is their primary OS. But Apple has no such restrictions on it as they make their own OS.
As for getting Windows to run on a Mac, I would guess that someone is going to need to design either a boot loader (based on Darwin) to help run Windows... or someone will design a PCI card that supplies the additional help Windows would need.
I highly doubt that Windows is going to install on an unmodified Intel based Mac when they finally ship.
Except, none of that is relevent, they could EASILY use an authentication chip that OS X requires, but Windows ignores, so running Windows on a Mactel would be (possibly as easy as it is on the dev machines right now) easy, and OS X wouldn't run on any other x86 hardware. Not difficult at all.
Yes, Apple said that the Intel Macs could run Windows but would not be supported by Apple. But we have gone over this a million times on these forums: Apple is a hardware company first. Their software comes in second; and on every Mac, they practically give the OS and any other software (iLife) away (or FCP Express preinstalled for $99). I actually think that it is a good idea for Apple to allow Windows to run. Users will get to run the OS "side-by-side" with the *EXACT* same hardware specs (because they're running on the same machine). Once and for all, users can see that Windows is total crap compared to OS X.
What is relevant is that Apple would have to set out to make a Windows compatible system.rainman::|:| said:
Apple makes their own hardware... that includes the logic board.
Apple isn't going to make Windows compatible systems... which is something they would have to set out to do, not something that you can accidentally produce just by using an Intel processor.
Which makes everything I said completely relevant.
And for these poor people who keep bringing up the developer systems, those are not Apple hardware.
That bares repeating...
The developer systems are not Apple hardware.
Apple has said that they are not to be used as examples of what is to come. And all that Apple has said on the side of Windows on Macs is that they won't stop anyone from trying.
If we stick with the facts and drop the fantasies, the picture here is actually quite clear.
Only if Apple includes that functionality with every box of Mac OS 10.5 sold.krunch said:
As long as Windows compatibility cannot be taken for granted, the developer will still be designing their app for the lowest common denominator Mac OS -- especially since dual booting is a PIA, and not something most people will be willing to put up with.
But that doesn't stop Apple of somebody else from shipping a $99-299 Virtual Machine to get MS Windows up and running inside a OS X window.
cube said:
Sorry, but booting Windows is not the reason Apple decided to go Intel, it isn't even on the radar screen. It *might* be a consideration for some end users, but I don't think that is a primary consideration for them either. Would it be nice? Yes, for those of us who occasionally have to use VPC, but for the most part it would just be a very low priority.
If running Windows is the key, why would anyone pay the premium for a Mac box to run Windows, especially if it might not be 100% compatible (drivers, etc.)? Mac users want to use OSX for all of the many reasons that make it the "prefered OS". That's why I pay the premium. The ONLY reason I use VPC is to connect to my office's VPN. Heck, I finally dumped Classic (yea!) to be totally OSX, why would I want Windows on my machine?
I know gaming is a big issue for some, but it has never held an attraction for me, so I guess that's another discussion.
The move to Intel reportedly offers speed, heat reduction, stronger path, etc. and other advantages. Booting Windows is not one of them.
I do know a lot of PC users that were initially excited about running OSX on their Dell until I explained to them that "it ain't gonna happen", at least not in the foreseeable future, or not without a hack.
Woof, Woof Dawg
RacerX said:
I'd think they would have the best reason to make it compatible with Windows, it's a selling point. As a cross platform developer who currently does 95% of my work on a Dell and then compiles for Mac last, I'd buy a Powerbook that lets me dual boot in a second over a Dell. However if it won't run Windows, I'll keep doing what I do now, compile for the Mac on an increasingly older PowerMac, I won't pay the premium to get a PowerBook.
I have to keep dual processor boxes around for testing. If the new Macs will dual boot Windows I can get rid of a PC workstation and just buy Apples. Otherwise again I'll just go as cheap as I can on the Apple side and spend most of my money where I get the best bang for the buck.
My customers are artists, many of which keep both platforms around for convenience, at a recent user group meeting those that did work cross platform were very interested in the Apple news because of the possibility of eliminating machines and reducing costs.
For my customers and my competitors, an Apple that will also run Windows makes Apple a very attractive vendor.
Macs will be able to boot into Windows regardless, since Apple has stated that they will not prevent you from running Windows. So in turn, this would be completely ideal for cross platform users, and especially, PC gamers. This actually has me excited.
One thing I actually hope for is: UPGRADABILITY! It would be nice to upgrade the motherboard etc etc...But since Apple will be producing the hardware, this seems highly unlikely...
Now if you're talking about virtualization software such as VPC, running OS X on Windows would probably be easy once a developer writes software that allows you to run it inside Windows. Look at how much trouble PearPC has at emulating the PowerPC architecture...*sighs*
But of course the other way around, running Windows on OS X should be much easier and around native speed once Microsoft rewrites VPC for OS X 10.5 (while assuming that the Intel Macs will ship with 10.5).
One thing I actually hope for is: UPGRADABILITY! It would be nice to upgrade the motherboard etc etc...But since Apple will be producing the hardware, this seems highly unlikely...
Now if you're talking about virtualization software such as VPC, running OS X on Windows would probably be easy once a developer writes software that allows you to run it inside Windows. Look at how much trouble PearPC has at emulating the PowerPC architecture...*sighs*
But of course the other way around, running Windows on OS X should be much easier and around native speed once Microsoft rewrites VPC for OS X 10.5 (while assuming that the Intel Macs will ship with 10.5).
Do you even understand the statement that you made? And the logical gaps within it?fiercetiger224 said:
I'm going out to lunch later today with some friends... I'm paying. I will not prevent you from joining us.
By your logic, you just got a free lunch.
It sure seems like some of you people think that if you throw a bunch of computer parts into a blender, add an Intel chip, hit puree, and out will pop a Windows compatible computer.
You have to take steps to make a Windows compatible computer. Steps far and beyond just adding an Intel processor. Apple would have to take all those steps for a Mac to run on Windows.
Well, not to put to fine a point on it, I can only imagine that your Mac software is currently no better than the Windows version with an Aqua theme (and in my opinion the best Windows software is equivalent to the worst Mac software).ewinemiller said:
So what you are doing right now is fine.
I, personally, think Apple should do what ever they can to get developers to make great Mac software. But what you want is something to help you be even lazier with your software development than you already are (according to your description, of course).
That would be catering to the wrong market in my opinion.
And besides, Apple has had Windows/DOS compatible Macs in the past and they didn't sell. Just because a hand full of people think this is a good idea doesn't make it one.
Doing anything to cater to Windows is a bad idea. If you need an example... SGI.
RacerX said:
What about only wanting to buy one machine instead of having to buy two machines makes a lazy developer? I'm pretty sure I never mentioned lazy in my description, let's not be rude. Cheaper (or a nicer way to say it cost conscience) perhaps, and I certainly wouldn't argue with that, but not lazy.
RacerX said:
Actually since Apple will most likely buy existing chipsets from Intel and have a PC motherboard maker build their motherboard, they are essentially throwing parts in a blender, but they are throwing in the same parts that Dell uses so in this case they would have to go out of their way to make it incompatible with Windows and I just don't see that happening since they've already said they won't do anything to prevent it.
MacTels gonna be MacWinTels and will take 50% of the market according to:
http://homepage.mac.com/loladze/
iBook running both Windows and Mac beats Dell for sure, even for die hard Wintellers
http://homepage.mac.com/loladze/
iBook running both Windows and Mac beats Dell for sure, even for die hard Wintellers