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
Re OS X on generic PCs:
* Apple has said they won't sell it, and they have excellent reasons that have been discussed to death. (OS X and Apple hardware are designed together, and are better, less bloated, easier-supported, easier-to-develop-for products as a result.)
* Pirates will steal OS X, but it won't be legal, easy, or supported--and so it won't be an option for the vast majority computer shoppers. It won't affect Apple much, beyond fostering the perception that OS X is desirable.
* But things change, and someday Apple COULD offer OS X to generic PCs. Maybe someday it will make sense, and maybe someday it can be done without destroying Apple's hardware business. Not now, but you never know. This has GOT to worry Microsoft, if they have any foresight. Why? Because now Apple has more power over them, and they have less over Apple. For instance, if MS were to kill off Mac Office (like they threatened to do unless Apple halted the QuickTime project), or take some other means to try to kill off the Mac platform... they now know Apple can turn around and sell OS X to everyone. Apple can retaliate if they have to--and make tons of money to stay lively (in some new form) in the process. Hopefully they never will have to use that last resort... but MS knows they CAN. Short-term damage to MS? Minor. Long-term damage? Huge.
So I won't pretend to be surprised that MS just committed to 5 more years of Mac Office
(If Microsoft were smart--and not afraid of anti-trust laws--they'd give up sales of Windows to Mac owners and NOT make a new VPC. In fact they'd work to keep Windows OFF of Macs. Windows on Macs just makes it too easy to switch! But I never expected MS to be smart in this... they'll sell you Windows for Mac, all the while helping you move to a new OS!)
* Apple has said they won't sell it, and they have excellent reasons that have been discussed to death. (OS X and Apple hardware are designed together, and are better, less bloated, easier-supported, easier-to-develop-for products as a result.)
* Pirates will steal OS X, but it won't be legal, easy, or supported--and so it won't be an option for the vast majority computer shoppers. It won't affect Apple much, beyond fostering the perception that OS X is desirable.
* But things change, and someday Apple COULD offer OS X to generic PCs. Maybe someday it will make sense, and maybe someday it can be done without destroying Apple's hardware business. Not now, but you never know. This has GOT to worry Microsoft, if they have any foresight. Why? Because now Apple has more power over them, and they have less over Apple. For instance, if MS were to kill off Mac Office (like they threatened to do unless Apple halted the QuickTime project), or take some other means to try to kill off the Mac platform... they now know Apple can turn around and sell OS X to everyone. Apple can retaliate if they have to--and make tons of money to stay lively (in some new form) in the process. Hopefully they never will have to use that last resort... but MS knows they CAN. Short-term damage to MS? Minor. Long-term damage? Huge.
So I won't pretend to be surprised that MS just committed to 5 more years of Mac Office
(If Microsoft were smart--and not afraid of anti-trust laws--they'd give up sales of Windows to Mac owners and NOT make a new VPC. In fact they'd work to keep Windows OFF of Macs. Windows on Macs just makes it too easy to switch! But I never expected MS to be smart in this... they'll sell you Windows for Mac, all the while helping you move to a new OS!)
Synapple said:
I am curious as to the IT policy that decides why no Mac OS is allowed on the network? I have been using my Powerbooks on all Microsoft Networks for over 4 years. I just plug in and and am good to go. Currently in a US Govt. Office which is about 99.999% windows and that last 0.001% are Macs. Got my Novell Client, Lotus Notes & Adium to do Sametime and am good to go. For the few times I need windows (Remedy, a few apps that only work on IE 5 and/or 6 & PC Anywhere), I use MS Remote Desktop to connect to my Govt. Assigned XP box and do what I need to do there.
I think we are probably going to see people running Windows on Intel Macs pretty quickly, but not on a commercial scale. With Microsoft buying virtual PC they are going to want that market for themselves and will probably claim it as illegal to install Windows on a Mac (unless you do it through their software). Hasn't someone already hacked the developers Intel Macs to run Windows? As far as computers go, where there's a will theres a way. I'm sure some enterpsrising hacker somewhere has put Windows on a PowerPC. This will just be easier. A good example is the XBox. There's a black market for hacked XBoxes as a desktop PC. You simply solder some chip onto the motherboard and viola, you have a $200 PC that beats many more expensive ones.
Evangelion said:
Evangeline-- don't get me wrong-- me of smaller brain appreciate your sense of noblesse oblige-- taking time from your big important activities to educate us simpletons; really, you truly are wonder!
But please, sire, kindly explain me, one more time, slowly?
Here's how me see it:
Choice #1: Windows, beautiful elegant Apple box, UNSUPPORTED
Choice #2: Windows, ugly dull sh*t-box, SUPPORTED
Now, try as me rack simple puny brain, me can't imagine anyone logically making Choice #1. But of course me limitations so great. Help please!
Thank you so much for time!
Pretty nice--use your Mac's secure design to protect your Windowshob said:
Keep Windows offline and safe (well, safer)... but still download the Windows software and patches you need!Games on VPC are an unknown for now, but it wouldn't surprise me to see it happen.
That's what Virtual PC does. Worth the money, in my book. (Plus you'd have to buy a copy of Windows anyway. Also, the top Office bundle includes VPC, and I expect that offer will be repeated.)geeyesgee said:
In fact, VPC adds the Windows Start menu to your OS X dock, if you wish--disturbing thought!
--even while VPC isn't running. VPC is typically "paused" (saved state) when not running, which means it launches just about instantly--much faster than Classic, actually.Choice #3: ONE single box (especially nice for portables) that runs BOTH Windows and OS X.Gasu E. said:
People who run ONLY Windows on a Mac will be a rarity I'm sure. (Mac-phobes who SAY they plan that... less rare?
) But people who run both will be pretty common in time.Re support: a dual-OS Mac will be fully supported for OS X (obviously)... but Windows will ALSO be supported, by Microsoft, if you use the VirtualPC method. Yet another reason why VPC will be a good option for many people.
GFLPraxis said:
1) The virus could in theory rewrite the partition table of the hard disk wiping out all partitions.
2) VPC currently plays games just fine, if somewhat slowly as it entirely emulates a very old graphics card and abstracts it from the hardware.
VPC completely abstracts the hardware of a PC so absolutely nothing hits the hardware directly. It all has to go through OSX to do anything. It's the best way to go if you're paranoid about Windows malware. When your windows install goes tits up, just reinstall a file image from a compressed backup. Simple.
I've one valid use for Windows, and that's running Internet Explorer. I design websites on a Mac but obviously have to test on a PC to work around IE bugs. With VPC I've set up 3 Windows PCs on my Mac. One boots with IE5, one IE5.5 and one IE6.0. It's actually more useful that having a PC as you can't install more then one version of IE at a time. Dual booting would be less productive for me as I couldn't work in the Mac session at the same time as the PC sessions.
For gamers, parallel working is not an issue but I have to question the sanity of anyone buying a copy of Windows to run PC games on a Mac when an Xbox360 costs less than a copy of Windows.
baleensavage said:
That would be dead easy as they're just PC motherboards, complete with a BIOS, in an Apple G5 case.
Here's a thought...
What if the new Virutal PC was a special version of Windows that takes advantages of the Intel-based Macs features (built-in iSight, etc), and runs in a thin layer of emulation (barely any, more of a simultaneous boot area.
It would run quick, and eliminate the need for partitioned dual booting.
What if the new Virutal PC was a special version of Windows that takes advantages of the Intel-based Macs features (built-in iSight, etc), and runs in a thin layer of emulation (barely any, more of a simultaneous boot area.
It would run quick, and eliminate the need for partitioned dual booting.
zzcoop said:
Sure there is. But there are LOTS and LOTS of unique games. Let's talk games for example: there are lots of first-person-shooters. And while they are all shooters, they are all different as well. I like "Day of Defeat", but I'm not that interested in "Counterstrike". You CAN have several games of the same genre. i have lots of strategy-games on my W2K-installation. And I believe none of them (apart from Civ3 & 4) run on OS X.
Hmm, I did not look at shareware since I do not use them, but that ratio would be 1:100. I was thinking only games and audio software.zzcoop said:
And I know it's hard to swallow for fanboys but unfortunately SOME Windows software are better: ie.: Sony Acid vs Garageband.
nagromme said:A fine choice--to each his own
I have used OS X for close to one year now. And I do appreciate what it has to offer, and I wouldn't have any issues recommending it to others. But, in the end, it made me appreciate Linux even more
.nagromme said:
Huh? I have never heard THAT happening, despite of running Windows for years, and large part of that in multiboot-environment!
The speed question
Dual OS's raises another issue (which will be benchmarked to death I'm sure): speed of one OS vs. another.
Of course there is no ONE measure of that, any more than there is one perfect measure of CPU speed. But that never stops the claims on both sides.
Mac OS X will be faster on the same hardware than Windows... for SOME things, by SOME measures.
And Windows WILL BE faster by other measures. Steel yourself, if you think it's likely to bother you
The two OS's have VERY different designs. And the design of an OS delivers a whole range of things beyond just speed: it delivers power, stability, flexibility, compatibility, developer tools, productivity, style, ease of use, and of course it allows the applications (iLife etc.) that help you DO things with your machine.
So out of all those factors, should raw speed be put above all others? Only if you're running a render farm or computation cluster. Otherwise, speed is ONE factor among many.
I won't be surprised if OS X tends to be slower more often that it's faster (depending on the tasks you do). And I won't care. If it's a better OS design in so many ways, a few % points of speed don't interest me much. Not with the extra power modern hardware delivers.
One good thing: this will be added encouragement for Apple to optimize things--like the team they have put together to enhance OpenGL. Good trend.
Dual OS's raises another issue (which will be benchmarked to death I'm sure): speed of one OS vs. another.
Of course there is no ONE measure of that, any more than there is one perfect measure of CPU speed. But that never stops the claims on both sides.
Mac OS X will be faster on the same hardware than Windows... for SOME things, by SOME measures.
And Windows WILL BE faster by other measures. Steel yourself, if you think it's likely to bother you
The two OS's have VERY different designs. And the design of an OS delivers a whole range of things beyond just speed: it delivers power, stability, flexibility, compatibility, developer tools, productivity, style, ease of use, and of course it allows the applications (iLife etc.) that help you DO things with your machine.
So out of all those factors, should raw speed be put above all others? Only if you're running a render farm or computation cluster. Otherwise, speed is ONE factor among many.
I won't be surprised if OS X tends to be slower more often that it's faster (depending on the tasks you do). And I won't care. If it's a better OS design in so many ways, a few % points of speed don't interest me much. Not with the extra power modern hardware delivers.
One good thing: this will be added encouragement for Apple to optimize things--like the team they have put together to enhance OpenGL. Good trend.
nagromme said:
This is the solution I want. I'd love to be able to have Windows running beside the MacOS, with full file transfer/copy and paste capability between them. There are a few apps I need that only run on Windows, and I'd love to have them open with my MacOS apps simultaneously. Dual boot systems wouldnt allow this, so I vote for the VirtualPC system!
Good also be sweet for gaming, as has been mentioned by others!
Yeah, but what OS manages the hardware. For example, if you are playing some music in the CD player through OS X, does Windows recognize it? I think what you are getting at is a partitioning or exclusive locking of hardware when running the OSs simultaneously.gotohamish said:
Macs on Intel is now. Macs running Windows (at a reasonable performance/price point) is still the last step needed for many users. I'm waiting to buy my MacIntel when I actually have a reasonable Windows solution.
Evangelion said:
Even if this were true, the beauty of the VirtualPC system is that you could store all of your files on the Mac drive, and any viruses you get would affect only the VPC disk image file, which would only contain your Windows apps and registry.
You'd still be a safe distance away from any nasties!
Gasu E. said:
Let's just say that I'm a Linux-user. And I'm interested in running Linux on Apple-hardware. And if I got a dime every time some Mac-user asked me "Why on earth would you want to run Linux on a Mac?!?! That's stupid! Just use OS X, it's just so good!" I would be a rich man.
Why choose #1? because it involves using a "beautiful, elegant Apple box", instead of "ugly dull sh*t-box". Simple, really. Yes, Apple wont support it, but the enthusiasts wont care one bit. Hell, Linux-uers have been running Linux on Windows-laptops for years, with zero support from the OEM! To them, there really isn't any difference between running Linux on Dell-laptop as opposed to Apple-laptop, as far as support is concerned!
You are right--a virus that just causes mass destruction isn't the norm. Viruses are more likely to turn your Windows machine into a spam zombie than to wipe your drive. But if Windows software can erase your HD (which it can--necessary to manage your systems) then Windows viruses can too.Evangelion said:
How likely is that compared to some other kind of attack? Well, it's the kind of question I'm spoiled enough not to HAVE to ask, being on Mac OS X
I like that peace of mind, and I like that Virtual PC (or the like) can help me keep that peace of mind even if I choose to run Windows.I can't settle for "a Windows virus might erase my Mac, but almost certainly won't." Not good enough. My business, my client files, my security, my privacy, my identity, my software investment, my creative output... all of these things are worth too much to me. (Which is why I don't know how Windows users sleep at night!)
So I'd rather not run Windows, even it WERE as productive an environment for me as Mac OS X.
But if I have to or choose to run Windows, here comes VPC to save the day
Others may not be as worried about malware as I am, and may choose other solutions. I'm all for options! And VPC isn't out for Intel Macs yet.
Selling OS X directly to other peecee makers would be a bad thing, Apple overprices it's products and it'd cut it's legs out. There will be I'm sure a few posts on this board by loud, delusional, idiots (living in the parents basement no doubt, out of touch or step with reality) who will shrilly say, with glee even, "see SEE, now everyone will be hacking OS X to run on peecees... " and when they open their pie holes, simply nod, think about how they're the minority, not stable, and haven't lives.
The reality is there will be (thankfully) no LEGAL way to run OS X on a peecee (for now). Sure there will be a few hardworking luser geeks with too much time on their hands cracking the latest version to get it to run on some machines, and probably not well. And they'll share these cracks with the luser "warez" crowd and some lusers probably on this board even will get their hands on it. Then the next OS X update will make that null and void but people will go on with the current hack. And mind you they may make it so certain apps wouldn't work well on a peecee motherboard too so it's really for idiots to say "look LOOK OS X on my peecee.... (mother yells) are you ever going to move out of that basement, you're 36!!!"
So while there will be people here saying how they're going out and buying or building some piece of crap peecee and are going to run out and steal OS X right now (because losers that do this never legally buy software, they lack morals or a conscience) this is how they work. And they will get a cracked version of OS X working for awhile....
... but ignore them, because they should be ignored.
To get a cracked version of OS X and run it will take a lot of effort, 99.9999 percent of most average computer users with peecees (aside from having no taste) don't have the wherewithal, time, effort, or in many cases the savvy to actually put a cracked version on the Intel machine, it won't be easy or supported and the masses en mass won't even know there's a way, and that'd fine.
So it's not the next coming, OS X will mostly be exclusive only the Macs (thankfully) and hopefully if we can get Windoze working on a Mac then those who have to look at the craptacular, ugly, clunky, buggy, weak weak OS known as XPee on the Mac, more power too them. Heck, I'd love to play HalfLife 2 but am not getting a P.O.S. XSux or peecee just for it, it's compelling though if there was a way to play it on the Mac.
This may be a great year! (As an Apple stockholder it already IS!)
The reality is there will be (thankfully) no LEGAL way to run OS X on a peecee (for now). Sure there will be a few hardworking luser geeks with too much time on their hands cracking the latest version to get it to run on some machines, and probably not well. And they'll share these cracks with the luser "warez" crowd and some lusers probably on this board even will get their hands on it. Then the next OS X update will make that null and void but people will go on with the current hack. And mind you they may make it so certain apps wouldn't work well on a peecee motherboard too so it's really for idiots to say "look LOOK OS X on my peecee.... (mother yells) are you ever going to move out of that basement, you're 36!!!"
So while there will be people here saying how they're going out and buying or building some piece of crap peecee and are going to run out and steal OS X right now (because losers that do this never legally buy software, they lack morals or a conscience) this is how they work. And they will get a cracked version of OS X working for awhile....
... but ignore them, because they should be ignored.
To get a cracked version of OS X and run it will take a lot of effort, 99.9999 percent of most average computer users with peecees (aside from having no taste) don't have the wherewithal, time, effort, or in many cases the savvy to actually put a cracked version on the Intel machine, it won't be easy or supported and the masses en mass won't even know there's a way, and that'd fine.
So it's not the next coming, OS X will mostly be exclusive only the Macs (thankfully) and hopefully if we can get Windoze working on a Mac then those who have to look at the craptacular, ugly, clunky, buggy, weak weak OS known as XPee on the Mac, more power too them. Heck, I'd love to play HalfLife 2 but am not getting a P.O.S. XSux or peecee just for it, it's compelling though if there was a way to play it on the Mac.
This may be a great year! (As an Apple stockholder it already IS!)
Edge100 said:
Better yet set VPC or even vmware to not save any hard drive changes, called undo on VPC. That way once you get your virtul PC running the way you want, you never have to worry about something changing files or registry settings. Every time you start up your session, it will be and act just like the last time you started it up.