MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

The more I think about it, I don't want my MacIntel to dual boot.

I something like VirtualPC to boot disk images of Windows from within OS X.

That way windows won't screw up my machine and any messes it causes will be trapped to that virtual boot image.

yes, lets keep windows in a 'quarantined' state in osx, for the best i think

Amen MegaMe! I haven't been keeping up with a lot of the technology but there are certain things I know I do NOT want when/if Windows apps run natively on Apple Mac hardware. I don't want them to run natively in Mac OS X if such a thing could ever be possible. Of course you'd be getting native speeds out of these Windows only apps. But other Windows only apps I can think of that would also run at native speeds would be viri and other M$ plagues.

I also don't want Windows running natively on my hardware for one simple reason: Windows destroys the hardware because it's such a poorly written and completely unoptimized POS.

Windows-only programmers: Nothing's going to change...your current platform is garbage. Start writing native OS X apps and realize the potential your apps could have.

I absolutely agree with MegaMe. Keep that stuff away from my computer.

It's the OS, people ... this weird assumption that people will switch over to Macs in droves because they can suddenly run Windows on it is just absurd. Does anyone actually believe that people use iMacs because they just happen to have a fetish for opaque white plastic?

Yeah I'm with you guys. I'm really waiting on VMware to release a Mac on Intel version. At that points, things get really interesting.

functus,

I think the idea is to be able to run Windows app's natively WITHOUT having to install the Windows OS on our Mac's, via some 3rd party software "emulator/translator" (for lack of a better term). This would be DIFFERENT from using Virtual PC or from dual-booting into Windows and OS X.

I've had a version of Virtual PC for about a year now when I got Office for Mac and I've been afraid to put in on my machine so far. I finally decided to try it today and chickened out halfway in because I just don't want to go back to the days of Windows issues here at home. I've installed Windows countless times before, but after doing to OS X installs on a work iMac, and seeing how easy those are, I couldn't bring myself to suffer through another Windows install.

Unless I come up with a more compelling reason to NEED a Windows installation at home I just don't feel like taking the chance that it will mess up my trouble free Mac experience. What has everyone else's experience with Virtual PC been? It won't tip me towards installing it, but I'd be interested to know.

you want msdos on your shiny new mac?, keep this crap well away.

nsapap,

I agree with you - running Windows apps without the Windows OS would be the ultimate.

Personally, I think Microsoft is exploring what VPC will look like on Intel-base Macs. VPC may not be running virtual Intel machines with Windows and Window applications. The Intel processor is already there. So, what can be done to just run the Windows app with as little intervening code in between Mac OS X and the application?

Scared of Windoze - Virtual PC will not mess up your Mac. Windows can be kept in a safe virtual machine that uses single Mac files for the entire Windows operating file system. A virus will be harmless. A virus could effect your Mac if you share your Mac root folder with VirtualPC. Don't do that, but a single folder would be safe. You can also drag and drop files between the OSes.

Don't sweat it. Virtual PC is safe. VirtualPC/VMWare is the best way to run Windows on your Mac. Dual-boot will not save you. You'll also run into problems with disk drive formatting. OS X will run slower on Fat32. Vista doesn't run on Win32 if my information is correct.

'We will do nothing to preclude Windows from running on Intel-based Macs

read into this very carefully, it's been repeated twice now

Microsoft has responded publically by saying they won't make a Vista version for Mactels.

But again the statement from Apple appears again. Like they are asking for something.

Is Apple telling Microsoft that they won't block a Vista version for Mactels through their hardware?

Is Apple going to change from selling strictly Mac OS X on their machines to giving people the option to install either OS X or Vista when they buy a new Mac?

This is what it sounds like.

Look at the facts, Apple is building a ton of stores in high traffic locations. The mass of potential buyers to those stores are PC users.

Apple could make a lot of money selling Vista on new Apple hardware.

After all Apple wouldn't have to support Vista, all they support is the hardware.

re: 'We will do nothing to preclude Windows from running on Intel-based Macs read into this very carefully, it's been repeated twice now"

You are really stretching here. Tell my why anyone would want to run Vista on Apple hardware?

I think the best solution is a Virtual PC or the like protected environment for Windows to run in. That is what I have. I need Windows for a couple of work related things, and that is what I use. It is a bit slower, and if I was into games, I would not use it, but it serves very well for what I use it for.

It then becomes a part of the overall Mac experience, in other words, a computer that does everything I want with no hassles.

Therefore, even less reason than ever to consider a Windows OS computer. Extend that idea a little further. So then,why then bother to develope software for Windows when you can just as well develop for OSX . Think outside "the box" a little and you could easily come to that conclusion.

Inless, sitting there in the closet, you really think deep down that Windows is better, and I think some of you do.

If it's there for the taking, then Microsoft must create an operating system for Apple hardware.

It is the DNA of that company to create the software for such a technological vacuum. There is Apple hardware, customers need sine Windows compatibility, therefore MS must provide in an appealing way for the customers.

The fact they are not jumping at this speaks volumes of the nimbleness of their infrastructure.

It's a bit of a pandora's box -- they must make a move here but it could be unfavorable. But again, here's the opening, and the company exists to take that opening!

MDN MW = "peace" yeah, boy!

I will never use windows ever again....unless im hot then ill open one

Microsoft can't so far create a good OS for Windows, I think they would be taking on the impossible to create even a vaguely acceptable OS for Apple hardware.

Might be entertaining to watch them try............

Its cheaper and less frustrating to have a cheap PC for any Windoze programs that you have to use. I would never put MS crap (other than Office) on a Mac.

Windows XP boots on a MacBook Pro. Screenshot here

Looks like it might just be a photoshop though.

You are really stretching here. Tell my why anyone would want to run Vista on Apple hardware?

Several reasons:

1. So that with only one machine you can run all the software that exists.
2. If you are a PC user and afraid of having a bad time with Mac OS X, you can install what you already own and know and feel safe.
3. In a corporate environment you could standardize your users hardware on Mactels.
4. For developers, you can have one machine and still develop for multiple platforms.
5. Just for fun.

As my nick implies I hate the transition to intel, but if Apple is making the biggest trojan horse in computing's history only time will tell...

Photoshop under Rosetta runs faster than any windows application runs in Virtual PC. It should be called Virtually Worthless.

Tell my why anyone would want to run Vista on Apple hardware?

Remember, Apple is a hardware company.

Apple will now do anything to sell more hardware, even if it means selling Mac's with Vista.

Look at the iPod, created a Windows version of iTunes didn't they?

Hardware is the car, software is the paint job.

The ability to run Windows by Mac OS X would be handy….
You guys do what you want, but I'm not putting that crappy Windows on any Intel-based Mac of mine.
For almost 22 years the Mac OS had done everything I ever wanted it to do and that's what I'm sticking with. It simply works.

IBM announced they will not upgrade to Vista when it comes out. They will be migrating to Linux.

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=4522

He's a troll.

re:"Its cheaper and less frustrating to have a cheap PC for any Windoze programs that you have to use. I would never put MS crap (other than Office) on a Mac"

It may not be for some of us. I have to have a laptop for my work because I move around a lot in the course of a day. Two computers do me no good at all.

I would never consider running the Windows version of Photoshop under Virtual PC, because I have the Mac version installed. DUH!!!!!!!!!

I am happy for those of you who can make the choice to not use any Windows software in your work?

Which brings up the question for those of you who refuse to use any Windows software. Where do you work where you can do that?

Do you work?

To Macdude; The OS is the difference, specifically OSX.

and to everyone else, Vitual PC is just a tool, like the mechanics toolbox that has inch and metric wrenches.

With Vista, you are going to be able to run all the software that exists?
You are joking, right? Would you care to make a very high dollar bet on that?

And, with all of the supposed changes and improvements to Vista, you think you will "know" the operating system? Hmmm......trying to understand that contradiction. Especially when you will be dealing with a "new" operating system AND the new hardware that will be mandatory to use it. It will require a far longer leap than OSX+Intel, and my bet is that few companies will make that leap.

And when they won't, there goes a huge chunk of Dell's sales, to name one.

In short, nobody needs to panic here although some of you will because that is your nature.

"Is Apple telling Microsoft that they won't block a Vista version for Mactels through their hardware? Is Apple going to change from selling strictly Mac OS X on their machines to giving people the option to install either OS X or Vista when they buy a new Mac? This is what it sounds like."

I would doubt it.

For example, your iMac might be able to boot Windows. But if Windows doesn't know how to deal with the power management issues on an iMac, your iMac will be running the fan all the time. Apple will not write appropriate drivers so that your iSight will work on Windows. I don't know about Apple's Airport card, but I assume it's an OEM with Apple's logo on it so it might work with Windows.

"Apple could make a lot of money selling Vista on new Apple hardware. After all Apple wouldn't have to support Vista, all they support is the hardware."

Now, this is probably untrue. Dell spends lots of money supporting customers with Windows problems (virii, etc.). Remember that Microsoft support is not something you get unless you buy your copy of Windows from Microsoft. If you buy it as an OEM package, Microsoft will charge you for support.

Apple would probably be obligated to support Vista-using customers on their hardware if they sold Vista as part of the package. At the very least, imagine the commotion at the Apple Store when someone brings in their non-working MacBook with Vista and some Apple Genius says, "Nope, sorry. I know we sold you this with Vista, but we don't support it. Call Microsoft paid support."

So, no. Apple will not ever ship a Mac with Vista. That said, this does sound like "an excellent third-party opportunity" for resellers such as PowerMax, Small Dog, etc. Sell a dual-boot iMac with an OEM Windows Vista and appropriate drivers for Apple hardware (that either they write, contract somebody to write, or support an open source project to write) for an extra $500.

Windows XP something on a mac that worked would be huge for a lot of people.

I started back in '84 on a Mac and stuck with them till '91. I have 14 users in my office right now and only two of them are running Macs. I understand all the good points of what OSX has to offer - I just can't shut the office down [software wise] to put everyone solely on what is blatantly a better OS.

If I could provide everyone an Intel mac running OSX but had the ability to run Windows software for the 5% of the time they need to use it - I would transition in a heartbeat (well... a few months - that's a lot of comps to replace budget wise.)

Windows on my Mac? About as much chance as a snow ball in hell.

"MacDude" you really should give up that crack!



MDN Magic Word: "fact". Fact is, MacDude isn't

With the new Intel processors, a operating system runs in a "sandbox", as EFI controls everything.

So it's possible to run more than one OS at once or switch between them obviously.

I think Apple is trying to tempt M$ to come out with a Vista version for Mac for a reason.

Apple is basically saying "hey we will not use EFI to shut out Vista"

The goal of course is to have Microsoft reciporcate in kind, by not shutting out Mac OS X on EFI based machines that M$ controls.

Strange?

Unfortunately, some corporate and U.S. Government software only runs on Windows. There "solution" for Mac users is to run Virtual PC. If Macs ran Windows, whether emulated or otherwise, there would be no incentive for such entities to produce true platform-independent or Mac solutions.

If (when) Macs become a bigger market share, there still needs to be a reason for developers to product Mac-specific versions.

Dear Apple,
Please work with VMware to port their software to your platform. I would much rather use their product to run Linux and Windows inside of OS X than wait for Microsoft to make Virtual PC work reliably.

If you need, I can set up a meeting for the two of you. Please let me know.

Thank you.

Further proof something is up.

Why in the heck doesn't the video iPods support Firewire AND USB2?

It takes hours on end to fill a 60GB iPod with USB2.

Why did Apple standardize on that and it's slow speed instead of furthering the adoption of Firewire?

Something is really strange when Apple forsakes a better standard for something substandard when there is room enough on the video iPods for both.

Why has Apple forsaken Firewire 800 in the MacBook Pro's?

It's not like they have a SATA port, and now only one Firewire 400 port?

How is one supposed to copy data quickly from one external drive to another?

What about a Firewire device like a video camera and a external drive to record the data because the internal drive is just too small/slow to handle it?

Why is Apple making Mac's more like PC's?

I used to think Mac Dude was a Mac user with a real hatred for Digital Rights Management.

In many ways I agreed with his hatred.

But Apple joining the 100's of Windows box makers?

Mac Dude IS Enderlie.

UW-Madison hacker challenge successful!!!

Webpage defaced by a multiple DOS attacks!

Yesterday we discovered the Mac OSX "challenge" was not an activity authorized by the UW-Madison. Once the test came to the attention of our CIO, she ended it. The site, test.doit.wisc.edu, will be removed from the network tonight. Our primary concern is for security and network access for UW services. We are sorry for any inconvenience this has caused to the community

http://test.doit.wisc.edu/

Ohhhh Dave, your in a lot of TROUBLE!!

Egotistical publicity seeking MacHead.

Watch the Mac's get thrown over this now, the world was hard for that little Mini. But in the end, mass DOS by drome PC botnets won the day.

You can't fight stupidity.

I used to think Mac Dude was a Mac user with a real hatred for Digital Rights Management.

It's not the DRM I'm worried about, it's the total loss of control we will have over our computers with Trusted Computing.

see comments here

and here

But Apple joining the 100's of Windows box makers?

M$ would of course have to include Apple's hardware specifications in Vista, much like they do all their board and card makers.

Apple is inviting M$ to create a Vista version for Mac's, which Apple will then sell on behalf of Microsoft (much like OfficeMac is being heavily sold by Apple now).

Which will then give Apple retail stores the option to sell a Mac to a Windows PC person, increasing hardware sales, which is really the only thing Apple cares about.

After all Apple allows Linux on Mac's right?

Would Apple forsake the increasing of Mac OS X market share to become more like a Dell in hardware market share of it's computers?

You better beleive it.

Apple has been banging it's head against the dam of Microsoft for a long time. I think they are less idiological now and very profit oriented.

$360 iPod boomboxes and $99 leather cases?

I rest my case.

"Tell my why anyone would want to run Vista on Apple hardware?"

Honestly I don't think anybody wants to run Vista on any hardware.

It's the applications. Like all other Windows versions, Vista will be an ugly, necessary evil for running certain apps.

The Holy Grail is one computer that runs OS X, iLife, MS Office, and all Windows apps (esp. in-house-built Visual Basic apps). Seems to me there's one company that could make it happen....

<flash>x<flash>

People are selfish. You can run OSX all you want, but if Windows can run on the new Macs then Apple will sell more hardware to the Windows community.

You want a Mac buy a f...ing Mac, if want a PC buy a PC most PC people aren't going to spend more money on Mac's no matter how good Mac's may be, get Mac and be happy in the end.

Scared of Windoze asked: "What has everyone else's experience with Virtual PC been?"

Years ago when Windows 95 was current, I loaded Virtual PC and 95 on a partition on the drive of my old machine, a blue-and-white G3 350 GHz running System 9. I had used Windows only on a friend's machine and was curious. At about that time, I read for the first time what became an old saw: The best way to learn Windows is on a Mac because it's just another program.

It was slow, but not too bad, and it was gen-u-wine Windows. Finding drivers was a bit of a pain, as was loading them. But since it's just another program, I kept incremental backups so I wasn't afraid to tear it apart. If I hosed it, I'd have a new one in 30 seconds. (The best way to learn Windows is on a Mac. . . .)

The spooky registry and every other pitfall turned into paper tigers. I had to pick up another Windows pal's lower jaw off the floor with a shovel when I purposfully nuked a bunch of critical code and was up and running again in seconds.

I downloaded free virus checkers and the free Zone Alarm but hardly used Windows on the net (too slow -- not its fault). There were lots of other free programs, but I found that none could equal those I had on the Mac, free or otherwise. Aside from its slowness, again not its fault because of the emulation, I found it to be so klunky it was laughable if not painful.

After a month or so I discovered RegEdit, dragged and dropped a bunch of the Mac's icons onto the 95 desktop, put the toolbar at the top and turned most of its skin into Mac System 9's.

Then I became bored and wiped it. I lost it in a move.

The Windows world has moved on since 95 but so has the Mac's and so has my curiosity. I since had to use 2000 at work, so gaining the experience with 95 was worth it but I've never been tempted to repeat the experiment. Apart from the speed of 2000 running on a Dell, there wasn't much difference between 2000 and 95.

Virtual PC and Windows 95 never harmed the Mac side of the computer. It's just another program.

MacDude,
I agree with you on this one. But for me I'd rather just run Windows on a cheap PC rather than buy a copy of Windows to put on a Mac. I have to have Windows for some very specialized quilting/sewing software. Also, having both is similar to speaking two languages. As-salaam alikum akhi, laa illaha illillah!!!