MacBook Pros in High Demand, Increased Mac Market Share?

[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. 🙄

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 🙄

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😱

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😀

 

[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

 

[jaydub]

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

See it for yourself here

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 🙂