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

[jbh001]

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

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]

Let The Responses Begin

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]

Microsoft

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]

Please!

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 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]

Well, it's official…

Apple is now just another PC company.

 

[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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'd never use a PC again, Ever!

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

 

[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?

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

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.

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

 

[AidenShaw]

definitely not an iMac

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.

*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.

 

[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]

Dual boot my hiney!

[rant]
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.
[/rant]

 

[~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.

 

[dagger01]

Form, not function

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]

Who needs dual-boot? Gimme a window!

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