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
other way aroundGimzotoy said:Hmm... so would running OS X on PC be like driving a Civic with a Ferrari engine in it?Guess it would. Don't see how your analogy is good if you like one version but dislike the other.
flahiker said:
Word 2004 has a Visio object viewer to view embeded Visio objects. Can't edit them, but can view as if it were an image. Don't know about CAD...
avus said:
Someone should interview Jobs and ask him whether they are giving up on FW800. Anyone notice how it is absent from the Macbook Pro?
Might just be that they used a semi-standard Intel motherboard (contracted it out, like they are going to do with the PowerMacs, er, iMac Pro or whatever they call it), but might be part of something bigger.
Somebody will write a Windows driver to allow control-click to function as a right mouse click. Believe dat!Booga said:
FW800 was dropped because Intel doesn't have a chipset for it, and they didn't plan on making one for it anyway. I'm assuming that they could easily make one if Apple would pay for it. We'll see if it makes a comeback in future models.longofest said:
Why Is Everyone So Concerned?
I've been trolling the forums of macrumors for a while and feel compelled to finally post...
I have a question for everyone? Why is everyone so concerned about potential Windows viruses on their Intel Macs if they decide to install a Microsoft operating system?
The fact that we are writing in a forum about computers tells me that most, if not all, of us are not computer novices. If you use common sense, download free antivirus software, update your computer regularly and scan your HD occasionally for spyware, viruses and other pests shouldn't ever be an issue.
I don't see why everyone is making such a big deal about FW800 being absent in the new Intel Macs. There are so few devices that work with it anyway. I suspect MOST, not all, like having it for the sake of having it and use it very little.
I've been trolling the forums of macrumors for a while and feel compelled to finally post...
I have a question for everyone? Why is everyone so concerned about potential Windows viruses on their Intel Macs if they decide to install a Microsoft operating system?
The fact that we are writing in a forum about computers tells me that most, if not all, of us are not computer novices. If you use common sense, download free antivirus software, update your computer regularly and scan your HD occasionally for spyware, viruses and other pests shouldn't ever be an issue.
longofest said:
I don't see why everyone is making such a big deal about FW800 being absent in the new Intel Macs. There are so few devices that work with it anyway. I suspect MOST, not all, like having it for the sake of having it and use it very little.
whatever happened to 64 bit
When are we getting 64 bit back? I know that for most people, it makes not such a big difference, but it seems like although the new architecture is a leap forward.. it also appears to be a step back at the same time.
When are we getting 64 bit back? I know that for most people, it makes not such a big difference, but it seems like although the new architecture is a leap forward.. it also appears to be a step back at the same time.
schatten said:
Excellent point, and this should be the biggest concern of mac fans. Soon, Mac software developers will go the way of the dodo if Windows can run natively on Mac hardware. Why double the time in development if you don't have to?
GREAT thread
in summary:
1. Many people need or want to boot into windows sometimes, please do not flame them. Gamers, web developers, etc etc.
2. since its EFI we will have to wait for Vista or use Vista beta or server2003 as someone mentioned. Someone should try the imactel with vista beta!
3. VPC may take longer than Vista but it could be almost as fast as booting directly and would have the added benefits of virtualization and not having to reboot.
4. what would be really cool is fast uses switching into a booted windows and somehow be able to fast user switch back to mac.
5. we dont know yet if vista will work with the dvd drive, isight, even keyboard. will require testing and possibly drivers to be written.
6. "Patience! Patience my love." - Gollum
in summary:
1. Many people need or want to boot into windows sometimes, please do not flame them. Gamers, web developers, etc etc.
2. since its EFI we will have to wait for Vista or use Vista beta or server2003 as someone mentioned. Someone should try the imactel with vista beta!
3. VPC may take longer than Vista but it could be almost as fast as booting directly and would have the added benefits of virtualization and not having to reboot.
4. what would be really cool is fast uses switching into a booted windows and somehow be able to fast user switch back to mac.
5. we dont know yet if vista will work with the dvd drive, isight, even keyboard. will require testing and possibly drivers to be written.
6. "Patience! Patience my love." - Gollum
nagromme said:Well, without arguing about why OS X IS necessary
There is demand for that OS X software, and money to be made.
There are three BIG reasons why Mac users will NOT be willing--on a large scale--to settle for running Windows on their Macs instead of demanding a Mac-native app. And with the Mac market growing (especially after the Intel change), developers will be more motivated than ever to sell to us
1. Cost. You have to BUY Windows. And possibly some helper app, either for installation or to actually host Windows like VPC. (Which also means a whole extra set of setup steps you have to go through before you can run Windows apps--not too difficult I'm sure, but not something your Mac can do out of the box.) And potentially an extra hard disk as well. More expense--unless you don't mind the hassle of erasing and reformatting your Mac to get two partitions.
2. Usability. You give up the benefits of OS X, which gets better all the time and is the reason you HAVE a Mac. You either accept the time and effort and inconvenience to dual-boot--in which case you give up OS X entirely for those times, and cannot use those apps in conjunction with your Mac apps... or else you run Windows and Mac simultaneously (with a fast new VPC, or even WINE to run--some--apps without Windows itself). Running both at once is cool in a geeky way, but it's terrible usability: working back and forth between two GUIs at once! That's not Mac user friendliness. Working in ONE environment is more productive if you have the choice. Not to mention a possible performance hit when running multiple OS's together.
3. Security and privacy. The advantages of NOT running Windows in this regard have been much discussed
When you stop and think about it, can you really imagine most Mac users settling for Windows?
For these reasons, users will continue to DEMAND Mac apps. (Even games, to a lesser extent. The GUI is not always an issue for those, but the other issues remain. I know I'll give my money first for native Mac games.)
Running Windows on Mac WILL be great for certain things--such as to give a comfort zone to people fearful of straying from Windows, and thus grow the Mac platform hugely. And it's great as a last-resort option for Mac fans who need a certain Windows app for work or whatever. We already use VPC for that, and VPC (or something) will soon be full-speed and work even better! But it won't make us LIKE running Windows, and won't make us want to buy Windows apps. We'll do it only when we HAVE to.
And we already do: if we HAVE to--and often by choice for games--we run VPC or simply own a PC. No change there. (And neither option is free!) So the people most likely to accept a Windows app or game on their Mac are the very people ALREADY buying Windows apps--for their PC game systems, or their old PC they keep around, or VPC to run some app from their employer, or whatever.
Conclusion: the market for native Mac apps is about to grow, not shrink, and developers will deliver!
I'm sorry but this is the consumer perspective and not the developer perspective. Like you, I want all Mac apps native, every mac "user" does.
But if you were a photographer and needed photoshop and all of a sudden Adobe said they were dropping Mac support but it would run a native speed on VPC or Windows, you would either buy VPC or dual boot Windows on your Mac, if a Mac alternative didn't exist.
This is the definition of a killer app.
Certain industries demand certain software applications. Every print shop in the world would buy Windows boxes if Quark and InDesign weren't available for a Mac. Sometimes, despite your preference, the need for certain software will decide which hardware you purchase. Mac users, of all people, should appreciate this.
It's ultimately going to come down to cost, that will be the exclusive deciding factor. Take Adobe for example, and let's assume that Windows runs on any Mac or VPC runs at full speed. Adobe is going to consider how much it costs them to develop two versions of their software, one for the Mac and one for the PC. Let's hypothetically suppose it costs the same amount of time and $$ to develop for both platforms. They're going to weigh the costs of development against the profits gained or lost by maintaining support for two platforms or switching to exclusively to one platform, respectively. Software that isn't profitable ceases to exist.
Let's hope OS X fans keep shelling out for software even after Windows runs well on a Mac, it's definitely cause for concern, if OS/2 demonstrated anything.
windowsisntbad said:
I think SoBig and others before it showed that any computer, particularly Windows machines, are susceptible to a monster virus every now and again, no matter how careful you are.
It's not a question of if, but when an OS X virus will surface.
(Ducks and hides for cover)
For Linux there's ELILO (EFI version of LILO). And someone will probably come up with a EFI version of Grub which will be able to load other OSes (like XP).
Also, does anyone know if the BIOS and EFI have anything to do with the firmware on video cards? Will we be able to use PC video cards as long as drivers are available?
Also, does anyone know if the BIOS and EFI have anything to do with the firmware on video cards? Will we be able to use PC video cards as long as drivers are available?
So when is someone getting one of these now-released iMacs? SiliconAddict and myself need some guinea pigs to figure out this windows thing before we get our shiny new powermacbookprolapdancewhatever machines; I need to run CAD programs!
emulator said:
I'll give it to you on the games but as for other software the 20:1 ratio is meaningless. Mac's may have less available software but who needs 100's of different programmes that do basically the same thing.
iMovie, Final Cut Express, and Final Cut Pro pretty much sum up the best available Mac video editing programmes from begginer to pro. On Window's there are literally 100's and most don't even come close to the quality of the Macintosh offerings
Actually its more like driving a ferrari with a manumatic transmission. If we break up the car as the Engine as the processor,suspension as the visual interface, gas tank as the Harddrive, then you can easily see how the link between the processor and the hardrive and the user, that crucial link that can be quite sophisticated, 7 speed manual gearboxes, or velvetly smooth, is equivalent to an OS. So, dual-booting a XP /OS X machine instead of being like changing out engines which Jobs did for us, would be like running a manumatic transmission. You have the regular automatic that you use for traffic, paring lots, all the stuff the office makes you go through; while you have that little manual up/down for blasting down those free roads at exubarent speed with sweet smooth crusing would be like OS X. So, would some prefer a traditional Ferrari with manual control, sure but then you better have a beater Honda in the garage for commutes. Hence the ugly grey box down the hall that unfortunately I have to use once in a while....ohh wait Jobs just announced Manumatics on all new MACS!!!! (And Entertainment systems too may I add!)macosxuser01 said:
Few apps took advantage of 64bit, and most of them (were there any?) were pro apps. I wondered if Apple would update the iMac to a 32bit Intel (I knew the iBook and mini wouldn't get dual-core Yonah), when it was already on the 64bit G5... Then, again, most consumers buying the iMac had scant knowledge or need for 64bit, so Apple must have felt that giving them 2-3x the performance of the G5 was worth the switch. My money is on the iMac "transitioning back" to 64bit around September, when Intel releases Yonah's 64bit, dual-core follow-on, Merom.davetrow1997 said:
That's when the MacBook Pro (still a gag-reflex on that name) will gain Merom, too. And I think that's the first time we'll see a dual-core Yonah take up residence in the iBook (MacBook - "regular flavor"?) and the mini.
I'm surprised none of you have thought of this, but I believe there's at least one more option for (possibly) running Windows apps on the new Intel Macs... And I believe it's one that WON'T require us to have Windows "cluttering" up our hard drives...
Remember back at WWDC, when Steve confirmed the rumors that Apple was switching to Intel? Well, the key piece of technology that was enabling that migration was - drum roll, please - Rosetta... And while the details from 6 months back are hazy, I seem to recall that Apple licensed the tech they named Rosetta from Transitive(?). And that there was much speculation in the days following WWDC that Transitive could make the emulator work on any platform, and for any OS... "Am I still holding all my marbles, or did I lose them along with my memory?..."
If I'm correct, then Apple could "potentially" have already contracted Transitive to write a companion emulator to Rosetta - let's call this one Gibberish - that would allow MacOS X x86 to load & run most Windows apps (even games!). And, being run atop an x86 architecture, that it would run those apps (and... "GaMeS... ohhlala" - if that's your only reason) at near-native speeds...
Chew on that and tell me what you think.
Can't Linux run Windows on top
From talking to some Linux geaks, the Linux BSD version that OS X runs on could also possibly run Windows as a shell. So theoretically, couldn't you just run Windows XP as a window from Linux BSD like OSX? the few people i spoke with seemed to think that Linux could handle the multi-threading issues from the 2 OS's. Anybody know if this is true?
Lance
From talking to some Linux geaks, the Linux BSD version that OS X runs on could also possibly run Windows as a shell. So theoretically, couldn't you just run Windows XP as a window from Linux BSD like OSX? the few people i spoke with seemed to think that Linux could handle the multi-threading issues from the 2 OS's. Anybody know if this is true?
Lance
kainjow said:Most people who boot Windows on their Mac are probably the people who don't buy namebrand PCs. They are the ones who custom build their computers, and are used to fixing their PCs theirselves. It's the same thing for ones who install OS X onto their PC
Most of the people. Man?! Are you for real. Ok rundown. I am photographer. Proffesional photo jurnalist to be exect. I love look and feal of macs. But often I do preffer windows, due to the fact that I have invested over 10K into programs for pc. There are allot of photography programs that are only windows baised. But on the other hand I would love to run OS X. Since there is alot of other programs that are only mac baised.
If mac will be abale to run XP, it would only hurt other hardware companies, since more people will go for mac, for it's grate aestetic value.
lancejorton said:
Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD which is not the same thing as Linux.
inmoonlight said:
...and built-in spell-checker.
I'm a civil engineering student, and as some others before have mentioned, AutoCAD is a very good reason to want to run Windows on a Mac. In the US, it is the industry standard for most computer-aided drafting. Although, I believe that in Europe Bentley Microstation is very popular. There are some alternatives available (Vectorworks, Archicad etc.) for the Mac however, for plan production purposes AutoCad's CLI is faster than a GUI. Also, while you may be able to save a Vectorworks document in AutoCad's .dwg format there are no guarantees that all of the components of your drawing will be recognized by AutoCad.
Another good reason to run Windows on a Mac is if you are enrolled-in or considering law school. I know many of the Legal programs that Law Schools in the US use are Windows only.
As far as games go, I agree with others and say just purchase a console system...Of course, the only game worth my attention right now is WoW and that is available on Macs!
Another good reason to run Windows on a Mac is if you are enrolled-in or considering law school. I know many of the Legal programs that Law Schools in the US use are Windows only.
As far as games go, I agree with others and say just purchase a console system...Of course, the only game worth my attention right now is WoW and that is available on Macs!
Norse Son said:
i think there's money to be made with switchers if Apple comes out with a click and run solution integrated in a Tiger update ( or Leopard ) to run native Windows apps; who need a PC then ?