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
Bradley W said:
I don't know why, but for some reason I doubt that would work. I don think Apple would want to make it that easy, as there are probably driver conflicts and such. Seems like they would at least make it harder than that as to avoid confusion or something.
Rosetta emulates a processor architecture, not an OS--two different animals. The Intel switch kills one of those two birds--and something like Darwine might (to some extent) kill the other eventually.Norse Son said:
There is zero doubt that Mac users WILL keep shelling out--in larger numbers, in fact, as the Mac market grows. Mac users will not accept being told to stop using OS X and start using Windows. That's the whole point of choosing a Mac.greenstork said:
I know what you're saying, but the current state of Mac users, Mac developers, and the Mac market is truly NOT parallel to the OS/2 situation. They are vastly different situations. So OS/2 doesn't teach us about today.
People like to say how bad Virtual PC is, but it's great for what it does: it lets me run a few Windows apps on my Mac without having to find a PC. (Kudos to the Connectix folks. I think it's an amazing piece of software.) VPC at near-native speeds would be even better, and much more useful to me than dual booting, although I wouldn't mind that for games. I can't think why MS wouldn't do it, unless they think that it'll alienate their PC hardware partners.
it's only backwards for hype
The iMac G5 never supported more than 2 GiB of RAM, so the main benefit of the PPC970 64-bit chip was never available.
It's a step backwards as far as marketing hype goes, but no consequence for the people who buy and use the machines.
The PowerBook has never had a 64-bit CPU, no step backwards.davetrow1997 said:
The iMac G5 never supported more than 2 GiB of RAM, so the main benefit of the PPC970 64-bit chip was never available.
It's a step backwards as far as marketing hype goes, but no consequence for the people who buy and use the machines.
Norse Son said:
Doubtful. First off that costs $$$. IMHO I dont see a huge return on investment. Also many of the API's for Windows are closed. WINE works because they very much reverse engineered many of the API's from Windows. That is why only a handful of apps work on it and only a small handful work very well. Then there is Direct X which is prob an even bigger mystery to most. I'm pretty sure Apple is going to just sit back and let the Windows community figure out how to get Windows up and running.
Roller said:
Screw Virtual PC. I've used VPC on Windows and frankly I'd take VMWare's workstation over that any day of the week. Heck if nothing else VMWare's network settings are 10x better and they support USB sharing.
strange days said:
Who needs to program for the Mac then?
SiliconAddict said:
Amen!
VMWare is an unbelievable piece of software. It completely trounces Virtual PC for x86 to x86 virtualization.
I see a lot of discussion of VMWare as an option for the Mac (as host OS), but as far as I know they havent announced a product yet. The best I have seen is a vmware forum posting from an employee saying they were watching the situation and couldnt comment on unreleased products, wink wink.
Has anyone heard anything more concrete?
macosxuser01 said:
For example for installing software on my iPAQ. There's only a handful of PDAs left that support Mac OS and that number is rapidly shrinking, given the fact that Palm decided to go Windows as well.
I sure don't like windows and Mac OS X is great for 99% of what I do on a computer. But my PDA and Raw Shooter Premium (no, I can't afford Apperture) currently only work on Windows.
nagromme said:
In how far does the situation differ? To me it looks exactly the same.
Well, business/corporate vs. consumer/creative/others, huge ecosystem of hardware and software vs. not, computer marketplace is not the same one today and not the same size, Microsoft is not in the same place, iPod mindshare supporting Mac growth from the side, etc. etc.dakis said:
The OS/2 situation is more different from this than it is alike
The sky is not falling Who's to say that the Intel Mac firmware doesn't have the Compatibility Support Module (CSM) that's supposed to be included with EFI? Has anybody actually tried booting an intel iMac from the Win XP Install CD? Has anybody found out whether the intel iMac uses an intel chipset or an Apple one?
maestro55 said:
To some extent, yes. Running something like GNOME or KDE on top of OS X would be tricky, but you could run individual apps. But usually the versions of the Linux-software available to OS X are quite old.
As for me: I would run Linux there. reason being that I'm primarily a Linux-user, not OS X user.
lancejorton said:
What is "Linux BSD"? OS X has nothing to do with Linux. The userland-tools are from FreeBSD (not Linux), and Kernel is a modified Mach microkernel.
I believe what you are talking about is something VMWare and the like provide. And, in the future processors will have hardware-support for it (virtualization). But right now you need something like VMWare for it (or, if you want to run OS X in a window inside Linux, Mac-On-Linux)
Maestro64 said:
Dual boot is almost as bad as emulated VPC... Yeah, once you are in it works better, but you have to reboot and give up the Mac while you are in Windows land. What we need is VMWare. This is basically software that carves out a space for both OSes to run on the same hardware at the same time.
You can switch between OSes at will, and none of the OSes are much bogged down by the others unless they are actually doing something.
Whats all this about viruses and malware on windows???
Competent windows users (mind you most people Ive met are far from competent) can avoid that stuff with ease.
OSX is no more secure than many other OSs its just that it isnt as common its not a big enough target for the virus/malware/exploit writers.
I was considering buying a new Intel mac but there are just too many things it does not have
Wheres the:
802.11a wireless (5Ghz)
Dual layer DVDRW
PC Card (sure there is the nice ExpressCard, the change has to happen sometime but why NOW?)
2+ button pointing device?!?! (sure I use an external mouse whenever possible (a proper Microsoft one!) but theres times you need to use the built in pointing device and its painful.)
Being able to boot windows out of the box would have been a huge plus
Ports on the back (its very messy and cumbersome having cables coming out both sides)
Docking station/ port replicator
Im sure there are a few other things but thats all that come to mind at the moment.
(and yes there are things I do like but I will not go into that )
Competent windows users (mind you most people Ive met are far from competent) can avoid that stuff with ease.
OSX is no more secure than many other OSs its just that it isnt as common its not a big enough target for the virus/malware/exploit writers.
I was considering buying a new Intel mac but there are just too many things it does not have
Wheres the:
802.11a wireless (5Ghz)
Dual layer DVDRW
PC Card (sure there is the nice ExpressCard, the change has to happen sometime but why NOW?)
2+ button pointing device?!?! (sure I use an external mouse whenever possible (a proper Microsoft one!) but theres times you need to use the built in pointing device and its painful.)
Being able to boot windows out of the box would have been a huge plus
Ports on the back (its very messy and cumbersome having cables coming out both sides)
Docking station/ port replicator
Im sure there are a few other things but thats all that come to mind at the moment.
(and yes there are things I do like but I will not go into that )
osx running on reg pc hardware would be terrible for apple because hardware sales are their bread and butter(just like i pods - free itunes, expensive ipod) - and if you could install osx on any system available then people would go the uglier, less reliable, cheaper route and just put it on their pc. that would in turn ruin the apple experience.
if people could use apple hardware and install windows on it, it would make apple more money because they would move more hardware unit and cash in there rather than the palty amount theyd make in software sales the other way round.
if people could use apple hardware and install windows on it, it would make apple more money because they would move more hardware unit and cash in there rather than the palty amount theyd make in software sales the other way round.
daveL said:
Why is that? If they said they wouldn't do anything to stop people booting to Windows, why would they do that?
Booting to Windows will be an immense selling point for every potential switcher on the planet, to make it anything other than piss-easy would be idiotic.
I wish people would stop speculating and just TRY! TRY and install XP. If that doesn't work, TRY and install Vista beta!
Jesus said:
It doesn't. Office for mac is not office. Office without Outlook is not office. Without the ability to use Access database which comes with office and outlook (no entourage is just a mail app) then it will never be the same.
Corporations use PST folders, without that ability you can never hook into a corporate mail system without many many hacks and workarounds. Besides IT depts won't let you.
Running windows on a mac is the only way the mac is getting into corporate america but now with the camera built into the powerbook thats another roadblock as many corporations don't allow cameras inside. Oops apple.
jono_3 said:
That doesn't make any sense. Companies make way more money on software sales than hardware sales. It costs next to nothing to burn an os onto a disk.
Ok, here is my take on the whole running of Windows on the Apple hardware.
Why would anyone want to shell out the price of an Apple computer...and sorry, they ARE a tad more expensive than a regular PC as you all know. Yes yes yes, you could all lay out what you pay for on a Mac and what you pay for on a PC any way you want. But since I build my own PCs, there is NO way Apple can beat me on bang-for-the-buck in terms of hardware. And I use top of the line stuff too.
So you'll go out and buy an Apple to run Windows on? Why not save a little cash and just buy a Windows machine to run Windows on? I'm not talking about getting a cheap Dell or whatever. You can get a great computer with all the bells and whistles you want and STILL get it cheaper than you would with Mac hardware.
Yes the gap is closing more and more on the price and that's a good thing. But still, why buy and Apple and not use OSX on it? All the arguments about "well, some people need Windows to run blah blah blah" are all moot. Need to run Windows? Buy a frickin Windows machine! Besides, Apple hardware is becoming more and more just another high quality PC in a cool case.
I'm buying a Mac because I want to run OSX on it...plain and simple. If OSX was available to load on my Windows machine(in a legit way, not a hack), no WAY would I buy a Mac. Yes they make great hardware, but I personally like to have much more control over what hardware is inside that cool case.
And I should add here, the above that I wrote is for people that want to use Windows EXCLUSIVELY on Mac hardware. If you're dual booting to use a program or play a game only, then that's certainly different. But as you know, there are some individuals out there that want a Windows machine only inside a Mac machine...which is just insane imho.
Why would anyone want to shell out the price of an Apple computer...and sorry, they ARE a tad more expensive than a regular PC as you all know. Yes yes yes, you could all lay out what you pay for on a Mac and what you pay for on a PC any way you want. But since I build my own PCs, there is NO way Apple can beat me on bang-for-the-buck in terms of hardware. And I use top of the line stuff too.
So you'll go out and buy an Apple to run Windows on? Why not save a little cash and just buy a Windows machine to run Windows on? I'm not talking about getting a cheap Dell or whatever. You can get a great computer with all the bells and whistles you want and STILL get it cheaper than you would with Mac hardware.
Yes the gap is closing more and more on the price and that's a good thing. But still, why buy and Apple and not use OSX on it? All the arguments about "well, some people need Windows to run blah blah blah" are all moot. Need to run Windows? Buy a frickin Windows machine! Besides, Apple hardware is becoming more and more just another high quality PC in a cool case.
I'm buying a Mac because I want to run OSX on it...plain and simple. If OSX was available to load on my Windows machine(in a legit way, not a hack), no WAY would I buy a Mac. Yes they make great hardware, but I personally like to have much more control over what hardware is inside that cool case.
And I should add here, the above that I wrote is for people that want to use Windows EXCLUSIVELY on Mac hardware. If you're dual booting to use a program or play a game only, then that's certainly different. But as you know, there are some individuals out there that want a Windows machine only inside a Mac machine...which is just insane imho.
"best from both worlds" would be the answer to that.
as a student, i am required to use several programs that either doesnt exist for mac,or requires me to go into a steep learning curve without the aid of any teachers. i would love it if i could use os x on a daily basis, then boot up windows xp\vista when i am required to use f.ex autocad.
as a student, i am required to use several programs that either doesnt exist for mac,or requires me to go into a steep learning curve without the aid of any teachers. i would love it if i could use os x on a daily basis, then boot up windows xp\vista when i am required to use f.ex autocad.