Well, I've already paid for the first five games in the Tomb Raider series and along with a few others (for Windows), and I think dual booting is a great option. I've already paid for Microsoft Office for Windows too, and I'd really hate to have to buy it all over again.
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.
Windows on Mac and Mac OS X on PCs?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
sunfast said:
Somewhere along the line Apple (either intentionally or not) blurred the line between "Mac" and "Apple". I always used the definition that Mac was the OS and nothing more. Certainly the word has been used to define both hardware and software for such a long time its hard to tell the two apart, but that has always been a side effect of Apple's unique approach to computing. Take Palm for example. Would you call the new Palm Treo that runs Windows Mobile a "Palm" or a "PocketPC"? I'd stick with "Palm", but that's a personal preference since Palm is a dual purpose name by design. Mac is and will remain an Operating System first. Putting Mac OS X on a Dell makes the Dell a Mac system. Taking Mac OS X off of an iMac doesn't change the fact that Apple named the thing "Mac". Just call it an Apple and be done with it. I don't think anyone has a problem calling the Apple ][ the Apple ][.
Now the iBook is an interesting problem unto itself...
The below is not quite true. In the case of VMWare the X86 machine is not emulated.
The Guest OS is run directly on the hardware except for the case of certain instructions that access "shared" parts of the hardware. These are trapped and emulated. But by definition a user level application would contain no such instructions.
But Yes, the machine does run a bit slower with VMWare. Why? Mostly because a machine runing VMWare is doing more. For example my Linux box is running linux and a web browser then I start VMWare and Windows XP so now the same hardware is running Linux, a web broswer, VMWare, XP and Internet explorer, now wonder it's slower. But with enough RAM the slowdown is very minimal
Foe QEMU the below might be true. You can run an "aceelerator" for QEMU that makes it work like VMWare but without it QEMU does use emulation.
The Guest OS is run directly on the hardware except for the case of certain instructions that access "shared" parts of the hardware. These are trapped and emulated. But by definition a user level application would contain no such instructions.
But Yes, the machine does run a bit slower with VMWare. Why? Mostly because a machine runing VMWare is doing more. For example my Linux box is running linux and a web browser then I start VMWare and Windows XP so now the same hardware is running Linux, a web broswer, VMWare, XP and Internet explorer, now wonder it's slower. But with enough RAM the slowdown is very minimal
Foe QEMU the below might be true. You can run an "aceelerator" for QEMU that makes it work like VMWare but without it QEMU does use emulation.
Randall said:I think the whole point of NOT running Windows on a VMWare type of setup is that it is slow, because you don't have direct hardware access. It doesn't matter if it's the same architecture, virtual machines suck. The benefits of dual booting are obvious for corporate environments using their Windows only software, as well as gaming in Windows. I would rather dual boot up any day then then have a virtual machine going. Think of Wine for Linux. It sucks, because it's trying to emulate Windows, and it's running on x86 hardware but that doesn't matter because it's still emulated and therfore still slow. The advantages for dual booting should be obvious to everyone. The only thing missing is Windows XP support for booting with EFI. I think it's just a matter of time before we see a hack for this. Somebody somewhere will make it their mission to be the first to dual boot Windows XP and Mac OS X on a new intel Mac.
Epicurus said:
But then you are basing it on the machine, not the OS, which seems to be the crux of the first half of your argument. I wouldn't call an Apple //c a "//c" or "the apple", it's an Apple //c. Just like a Mac is a Mac; Macintosh is the type of hardware. The OS used to be called MacOS, so saying "MacOS" machine might make sense, but then that would be like defining your //c as a "ProDOS machine", wouldn't it?
disconap said:
Anything Apple makes is an Apple. It's the Apple iPod, the Apple iMac, etc. Similarly its the Palm Treo, the Palm Tungsten, etc. In conversation it is commonly accepted to say "I have a Mac" or "I use a Palm". Until recently those specefications were definitive in describing the hardware and software of your device. Now Palm has embraced Windows Mobile, so saying "I have a Palm" no longer means with absolute certainty that you are running the Palm OS. Once people hack through Apple's defenses and get the Mac OS on regular PCs and Windows onto Apple hardware, the lines defining "Mac" blur even further.
I would say that the statement "I have a Mac" will have to be more narrowly defined to mean you are running the Mac OS on some form of hardware. Similarly, "I have a MacBook" will no longer certainly mean you are running the Mac OS at all. Just as right now people are careful to specify if their "new iMac" is a G5 or an Intel, people will have to be careful to specify if their new MacBook is OS X or Vista (or Linux or some combination). Certainly people will say "I have a Mac" when they have an iMac that runs Windows exclusively, even though I think that is an incorrect usage of the word. Apple will probably never care one way or the other (as long as they're the ones who open up OS X for general distribution).
The Apple // stuff was simply a reference to the fact we once called all the Apple computers Apples rather than Macs. Since every computer that ships with Mac OS X is a Macintosh as well as an Apple, if the Mac brand ever becomes confusing in its usage (due to a flood of Mac OS X capable Dells or HPs or whatever), we can always fall back on the Apple name.
Well, this explains how Apple is gonna stop OS X from running on other PC's! Run it on something different! Genius! Now, how to keep OS X off EFI machines?greeneggs said:
SiliconAddict said:
I don't know about the company, but the software they have looks like a good solution for those who want to run a Mac and who have need to run Windows. I don't mind having homebrew desktop machines (though I wouldn't mind a Macintosh desktop machine) but I would really perfer to have an Apple portable computer, I love the new MacBook Pros, and I have loved the Apple Powerbooks long before the G3. I remember when the G3 game out and then the G4 and now the MacBook Pro. I can't wait until after this summer when I have the money for my MacBook Pro. Now at this point I don't see running into too many problems doing everything I need to do in OS X, since OS X can run Linux applications native and is already based on BSD I don't see a reason to run Linux or netBSD on a Mac. But what if I am asked to use software that is designed for Windows? In that case I will need a windows machine, and I would like to use my Mac. That is when this application or something similar (and I would like to stay away from Microsoft VPC) to run Windows XP for a few simple tasks.
Emulator for Intel Mac
I've just ordered a MacBook, and found out that VPC will not run on it.
1. Is there a good emulator that works as well as VPC did for me (basic XP operations) on my G5 dual coming out for the Intel Mac?
2. When?
3. Do all emulators come with a certified copy of XP? Or do they provide you with only the ability to put a purchased copy of XP on a portion of your Mac?
I don't use it for anything but MS Publisher, connecting to my idiotic Exchange Server at work to collect my corporate email, and my beloved www.pokerstars.com. These uses, however trivial in the grand scheme of uses for my Mac, are still necessary to keep productive at work, so any feedback or advice pertaining specifically to this would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
I love this site!
KillerBuck
I've just ordered a MacBook, and found out that VPC will not run on it.
1. Is there a good emulator that works as well as VPC did for me (basic XP operations) on my G5 dual coming out for the Intel Mac?
2. When?
3. Do all emulators come with a certified copy of XP? Or do they provide you with only the ability to put a purchased copy of XP on a portion of your Mac?
I don't use it for anything but MS Publisher, connecting to my idiotic Exchange Server at work to collect my corporate email, and my beloved www.pokerstars.com. These uses, however trivial in the grand scheme of uses for my Mac, are still necessary to keep productive at work, so any feedback or advice pertaining specifically to this would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
I love this site!
KillerBuck
I believe Microsoft will come out with a native Intel Mac version of VPC, hopefully soon. A native Intel version will run much faster as it won't have to emulate an x86 processor like the current Mac version of VPC has to.KillerBuck said:
Emulators don't come with a legal copy of XP unless they specifically say that they do
Dump Publisher and get InDesign or Quark, which are OS X native and a hell of a lot better than Publisher ever will be. I think Entourage connects to Exchange.
As for the poker site, internet gambling is illegal, but that's your problem not mine, so do as you wish.
Dm84 said:
Thanks for the info, immense help.
I do have InDesign and love it, however the others in our organisation use Publisher strictly.
As for the poker thing, I meant to type www.pokerstars.net, the non-gambling site.
KillerBuck said:As for the poker thing, I meant to type www.pokerstars.net, the non-gambling site.
pokerroom.com is a good poker site, and you can play via java in your web browser (on a mac). It has a lot of people and a good variety of games.
KillerBuck said:
Apple's own Mail.app can check Exchange mail and I use it to check my mail which is held on an Exchange server. I don't know why many people know Mail supports Exchange yet... perhaps because Exchange isn't really that popular.
Anyway, when you create a new Mail account you can see that your choices are POP, IMAP and EXCHANGE. So you don't need Windows emulation or the crappy Entourage to check your Exchange-based mail.
maverick808 said:
I've tried briefly to connect to the exchange server using Mail, however where I'm stumped is where it asks for your incoming mail server. This is not required for XP users, and my server admin. (who is not a professional) doesn't know what I should enter into that tab. Can you help?
KillerBuck said:
Yup, the incoming mail server should just be set to the Exchange server itself. So whatever Windows users get told to set their Exchange server to is what you put for the incoming mail server. This is also what "Outlook Web Access Server" should be set to.
Note you may have to try with SSL on and off as this just depends on the security level they've set on the server.
fh2level said:Does anyone know if there will be Intel Chips for the PowerPC G5's and be 64 bit... I two need BOTH Mac and PC and would love to just have ONE machine and Run OSX and Vista (when it comes out) WITHOUT VPC????
Huh?
Are you asking if they are going to put a G5 and a core duo in the same computer? If so then Umm no. No they aren't. Intel is the future. The PPC and the G(blah) is dead.
Did anyone else see this article at THG. http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/28/toms_hardware_uncovers_power_drain_issue/ It implies that there is a known flaw in XPSP2 that makes it run poorly (well inefficiently) on Core Duo. It'll be very interesting when Core Duo machines finally start shipping and have 1 hour less battery life when running XP than OS X .
Plus, it makes attempting to run XPSP2 on Intel iMacs/MBP that much less appealing....
B
.Plus, it makes attempting to run XPSP2 on Intel iMacs/MBP that much less appealing....
B
KillerBuck said:
Generally that would be mail.yourip.net (.com whatever )
example: mail.earthlink.net
balamw said:Did anyone else see this article at THG. http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/28/toms_hardware_uncovers_power_drain_issue/ It implies that there is a known flaw in XPSP2 that makes it run poorly (well inefficiently) on Core Duo. It'll be very interesting when Core Duo machines finally start shipping and have 1 hour less battery life when running XP than OS X
Plus, it makes attempting to run XPSP2 on Intel iMacs/MBP that much less appealing....
B
If you actually read about the flaw, it's only when you have a USB 2.0 device hooked up to the system which I think would be unusual. Since when I work on my laptop, I don't have a USB drive hanging off constantly unless I'm parked at my desk (and also plugged in) I don't think it's going to be an issue for most people.
What the duece?
You do realize what an absurd statement that was right? PPC procs are embedded in damn near everything. From toasters to cars. Please refrain from such nonsensical posts.
SiliconAddict said:
You do realize what an absurd statement that was right? PPC procs are embedded in damn near everything. From toasters to cars. Please refrain from such nonsensical posts.
Microsoft sure doesn't think so... seeing as they basically crowded Apple out of the market. And IBM's POWER/PowerPC architecture has left the rest of the processor industry painfully behind in the area of supercomputing applications.SiliconAddict said:
What is dead (and a path I thought Apple should never have gone down) is Altivec. IBM never liked the technology and never had a vested interest in it. And when a chip maker doesn't have a vested interest in one of their products, that product isn't going to see much in the way of funds for future development (as we saw with the 970 line).
fh2level said:Does anyone know if there will be Intel Chips for the PowerPC G5's and be 64 bit... I two need BOTH Mac and PC and would love to just have ONE machine and Run OSX and Vista (when it comes out) WITHOUT VPC????
If there were Intel chips in the "PowerPC G5" it wouldn't be a PowerPC G5.
X86BSD said:
It's pretty clear he meant on the desktop. The Freescale processors are popular in embedded devices, but as for the desktop, the closest it will get is the XBox 360, PS3, and Revolution. All hopes for staving off a complete Intel monopoly rest on AMD.
right now AMD have 22% market share, i was very dissaponted apple chose the ifferior chip over the athlon 64, i know this one mite sound a little nit picky but do you want your 64 bit being called iEMT64T or 64 bit or amd64. the two last ones make more sence than the nonsense form intel and there new Intel 890 EMT64T J C M LW. what ever all that means whats the clock speed, whats the cashe, yes we know its going to be slower than a cheeper AMD chip by 10% and not run 64 bit code right like intel prehots do in linux. there is instructions missing in the intel emt64t instruction set, us linux guys have to emulate them. there in the AMD set but not the intel set.
When i buy my new iMac i would prefer a dualcore Turon 64 bit to a core duo. but a core duo it will have to be.
When i buy my new iMac i would prefer a dualcore Turon 64 bit to a core duo. but a core duo it will have to be.
babyjenniferLB said:
Intel might not have the best CPU's out but they do make the best and most stable motherboard chipsets out there. I went from Intel to Athlon 64 X2 and while the Athlon is leaps and bounds faster than the Intel the (lack of) stability of the system sickens me. My P4 system never missed a beat whereas my Athlon (and my friends one) has had nothing but problems.
What do you want? A super fast computer with stability problems or a slower computer which is much more stable?