Duff-Man said:
Well, I have dial-up, a wife, 3 dogs, and a 60+ hour/week job so I do not have the time to read 2000+ posts....though I would love to
Thanks for the informative quote dejo....that's what I was hoping to find out.
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.
Oh NO....OSX on a dell
- Thread starter Jovian9
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, I have dial-up, a wife, 3 dogs, and a 60+ hour/week job so I do not have the time to read 2000+ posts....though I would love to
Thanks for the informative quote dejo....that's what I was hoping to find out.
A few questions
Could anybody clarify these points please?
We on the Mac platoform don't get Mac versions of a lot of Windows stuff supposedly because its too difficult to translate. But the Mathematic program was changed from PPC to x86 in 2 days! So if it takes that short a time to get programs changed why don't we have more programs getting changed from x86 to PPC?
Will it be easier for developers to change existing Windows applications to x86 for Mac than it was before? So we should be seeing more games, and programs?
And, if you were to wipe your Intel-Mac harddrive, wouldn't you be able to partition it and install Windows XP and Mac OS X on different partitions?
Sorry if these questions are stupid.
Could anybody clarify these points please?
We on the Mac platoform don't get Mac versions of a lot of Windows stuff supposedly because its too difficult to translate. But the Mathematic program was changed from PPC to x86 in 2 days! So if it takes that short a time to get programs changed why don't we have more programs getting changed from x86 to PPC?
Will it be easier for developers to change existing Windows applications to x86 for Mac than it was before? So we should be seeing more games, and programs?
And, if you were to wipe your Intel-Mac harddrive, wouldn't you be able to partition it and install Windows XP and Mac OS X on different partitions?
Sorry if these questions are stupid.
FearFactor47 said:
Good questions, actually.
The difficulty in porting an application from Windows to Mac does not generally stem from the differences in CPU architecture. The difficulty is in the fact that Windows and OS X have 100% completely different programming interfaces and different conventions as far as the user interface and preferences, etc. go. The net result is that a lot of code needs to be rewritten in order to support the other OS- code that does not have anything to do with the architecture.
So the switch to Intel for Macs will not affect most of the work necessary to port a program from Windows to Macs.
As for the partitioning question...it's possible but we won't know until we see if Windows fully supports whatever hardware (the complete hardware, not just CPU) Apple uses in future Macs. If it does, then Apple claims they won't do anything to stop you from installing it.
True... and the reverse is also true. I use a lot of software that has no Windows versions.FearFactor47 said:
We are talking about Mathematica* here, right?
They were taking Mathematica for Mac OS X PowerPC and porting it to Mac OS X Intel.
The demo had nothing to do with porting Windows apps... and no, it is not any easier.
Linux has been around on x86 since the early nineties and you don't see a lot of Windows software being ported to it... that is because it (like Mac OS X) handles applications differently.
There is some debate on this issue... from what I've heard, I don't think so.
* The people at Wolfram Research happen to be very close to Steve Jobs. In fact every NeXT system that shipped to academic customers had Mathematica pre-installed... for free (as part of the software bundle).
This is not too surprising as Mathematica (the application name) was originally suggested by Steve Jobs.
iMeowbot said:
It might be, I don't think anybody outside of Apple can claim to know at this point. Possibly when some of these systems get into the hands of developers, we'll begin to hear about the technical issues involved with running Windows on a Mactel. Taking not such a huge flyer, I'm going to guess that any compatibility layer that will be required will be much, much lighter than the current VirtualPC. If the freeware/shareware/opensource community can come up with something as relatively sophisticated as WINE, I think they can solve this problem too.
Just because he says that they probably will, doesn't mean that you can go and install a retail copy of Windows on a Macintel. There are still other issues that will need to be overcome before Windows can run on the Macintel. These are all related to how will ensure that OS X cannot be installed on generic PC box (BIOS issues and so forth). I look forward to it happening, but, personally, I hope for a better emulation mode like WINE, VMWare, or VirtualPC where they only emulate the Windows code and not the hardware. Rebooting for those few occasions that I need a Windows app will be pain.
RacerX said:
I guess you didn't read the rest of the thread.
I answered the question. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Mandatory eye rolling to follow.
kgarner said:
I never said that, so you're not debating that point with me. Phil Schiller seems to be acknowledging that people will be able to run Windows on Mactel and even more to the point, that Apple won't do anything to preclude it. That's a very interesting remark in my book. Personally, I don't see the technical issues being insurmountable, and at the very least, the degree of emulation required will be far, far less than is needed today.
I think a true dual-boot Mac opens up some real possibilities for Apple and Mac owners. This entire concept bugs some people, I guess.
"That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
The use of "they" in this context is NOT Apple. When he says "they" he means 3rd parties who have the tech savvy to do so.
He simply says that Apple will not do anything to preclude them trying (i.e. no purposely restrictive hardware etc).
so where are you getting:
I guess what is "bugging" people is your insistence on the subject, where there is no evidence that dual-booting will ever exist, and plenty of evidence that eludes to doing this would be very technically difficult.
Phew. Essay over.
The use of "they" in this context is NOT Apple. When he says "they" he means 3rd parties who have the tech savvy to do so.
He simply says that Apple will not do anything to preclude them trying (i.e. no purposely restrictive hardware etc).
so where are you getting:
When you say "Apple knows it can be done" - what are you basing it on? This has absolutely not been said.IJ Reilly said:
Yes, it would, but Shiller has said only that it might be possible, and that Apple would not make it impossible, but he has hardly said that Macs will be "Dual-boot" with easy implementation. Why do you think this would be so simple? As has been said before, simply getting linux on a Mac has major issues, and Shiller certainly hasn't said that MS are building a version of windows for the new Macs - like that would EVER happen.IJ Reilly said:
I guess what is "bugging" people is your insistence on the subject, where there is no evidence that dual-booting will ever exist, and plenty of evidence that eludes to doing this would be very technically difficult.
Phew. Essay over.
James Philp said:
Exactly. This is what I said.
James Philp said:
Exactly. This is what I said.
I take Schiller's remark to mean it will be possible in some way, shape or form. What this way shape or form is we don't know yet, but I suspect we'll find out pretty soon.
So where did you get this gem?IJ Reilly said:
Oh, and where did you get the information that Macintels will be able to dual-boot?
RacerX said:
Actually, they tried. The IBM-PC boot ROM was proprietary, but not so complex that it couldn't be fairly readily reverse-engineered. Compaq pulled that feat off in about a year of effort. Phoenix came next. Then the cat was truly out of the bag because because IBM didn't own the OS.
James Philp said:
Partly a direct quote, and partly reading very minimally into what that direct quote means.
But how about this... rather than climb all over me for my interpretation of what Phil Schiller said, why not tell us what you think he meant by the statement "probably they will"?
Minimally? You've been saying that the Macintels will be dual-booting, and Apple have windows running on a intel-based Mac already!IJ Reilly said:
Phil Shiller's not dumb; he realizes that there are smart people out there, and given a motivation they can achieve a lot. That's what he meant.IJ Reilly said:
omg...!
Why is everyone debating the underlying meaning of what Shiller said?
People are so quick to say "I KNOW what he said...but what he really meant is this..."
Don't twist his words. He said "someone" (ie. YOU and I or ANYONE else) "would be able to and we (Apple) won't do anything to stop it".
What does that mean?
It means that people will get Windows running on a Mac, and Apple wont try to stop it. Nothing more, nothing less.
He didnt say "Third-party devlopers...", nor "Microsoft...", he said "Someone..."
Why is everyone debating the underlying meaning of what Shiller said?
People are so quick to say "I KNOW what he said...but what he really meant is this..."
Don't twist his words. He said "someone" (ie. YOU and I or ANYONE else) "would be able to and we (Apple) won't do anything to stop it".
What does that mean?
It means that people will get Windows running on a Mac, and Apple wont try to stop it. Nothing more, nothing less.
He didnt say "Third-party devlopers...", nor "Microsoft...", he said "Someone..."
James Philp said:
Okay, call it an excess of enthusiasm for the possibility if it makes you happy. My reading of Schiller's remark is that he knows it's possible because Apple has already done it. He didn't say, "Gee, I don't know."
Don't forget, Apple's been running OSX on Intel hardware for five years now. Do you think it's unreasonable to suppose that they've tried installing Windows on it at least once in all that time?
James Philp said:
In a way, that's what I meant too (as you can tell by reading my other posts on this topic). My prediction, if I might be permitted to make one, is that the level of effort which will be required to cause this to be a reality is not very great, which is to say, much less than is required to make Windows run on a Mac today. Not a very controversial prediction I would have thought.
I picked up another interesting tidbit that might be quite relevant in the "will Mactel be able to run Windows?" debate:
http://developer.apple.com/document...iversal_binary_tips/chapter_5_section_18.html
So, if Mactel machines don't boot into Open Firmware, then what kind of boot ROMS are they using? If they're generic PC boot ROMS...
http://developer.apple.com/document...iversal_binary_tips/chapter_5_section_18.html
So, if Mactel machines don't boot into Open Firmware, then what kind of boot ROMS are they using? If they're generic PC boot ROMS...