MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

it's all doublespeak.

One question I have, is why would anyone want to run a full version of windows on an Intel based Mac? Seriously, I'd much rather have a version of Wine working in OS X and run apps in OS X independently of Windows, if possible. Wouldn't that make more sense? Other than games...I don't see a need for it.

Ummm, if it's not as cheap as Dell, it won't outsell Dell. Good luck.

Though this is good new for Apple, it seems as if this will also benefit Microsoft as they have one more hardware manufacturer (Apple) that can now run their software.

Not so good for Dell, Hp and the like...

It's true! There's a guy over at xlr8yourmac.com that says the developer boxes can run Windows. Go check it.

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/

MW: mother ... of .... LOL!

Despite many programs available for the Mac, there are still a TON that don't.

OS X is not doubt superior, but please take off the Steve Jobs Warping Glasses...

Yes, you can use Virtual PC, but some peeps just don't wanna deal with hassles.

This exact point (will devs continue to write Mac software if OS X can run windows apps full speed) came up in the comments just a few article ago and the same kind of conclusions were reached. (by me for one )

There are still way to many ways things could go and still way too many variables to say for sure yet but I for one would back Steve's machevellian streak any day and think this will turn out to be a really good move for Apple.

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/apples_intel_shift_could_result_in_market_share_gain/

DakRoland, my company has an app that we made that only runs on windows. It will be a very big benefit for me to have a Mac that can run windows if need be. Of course 99.9 percent of the time I would be on OS X though.

I don't like dual booting, Wine would be cool. Am I wrong in thinking that most of the work has already been done to port WINE to os X?

"Despite many programs available for the Mac, there are still a TON that don't. "

And many of those should be immediately deposited in the trash, because that's what they are. Crappy apps do not linger or even show up for the Mac platform because of the smaller market. Word of mouth in the Mac community quickly basnishes the crap apps where they belong.

The Glass is half full.

I only have one Windows app I need to run, so I'd much prefer to run it using Darwine instead of a Mac dual booted in Windows (no $$ to M$). But right now, Darwine is not yet ready for prime time (for any non-geek consumer).

I'm hoping the chip shift will speed this project up considerably:

http://darwine.opendarwin.org//

Any developers out there want to join that club??

I love the idea of someone having the ability to switch back and forth between a 5 year old buggy, virii infested OS and...... Tiger.

It's the kind of switch back and forth that.. over time.. becomes 'forth'.

10.4.

For most highend PC gaming, don't you need Microsoft's Direct X framework? There are some things I currently use PCs for even though a Mac G5 is my main desktop. Gaming is number one, and I wouldn't mind being able to double boot into Windows. Can you access the power of the latest games within WINE? and without MS Windows?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the OS/2 effect. When IBM constructed the OS/2 operating system for its PCs (about 1987), the hardware IBM people insisted that OS/2 run Windows 3.1 and DOS programs natively, thought the OS/2 people disagreed. The hardware people won.

OS/2 was the best microcomputer OS out there at the time, better even than Mac OS (IMO), running on the most respected platform. Yet it failed because developers never bothered to write for it, they just wrote Windows programs. The same will happen if sufficiently many Intel-based Macintosh runs Windows. Why bother porting a game from the Windows API to cocoa when gamers will be running Windows anyway?

The Intel-based Mac will not grow as fast as feasible. Valuable programs like AutoCad and Adobe FrameMaker will stay Windows-only.

Apple is a two-part computer firm: hardware and software. Running Windows helps the hardware side. But it does not help the software side. Ultimately the Intel-based Mac will grow because of its software (IMO). Running Windows on Intel-based Macs strengthens Microsoft while doing little for Tiger/Leopard penetration.

I agree, this could be a huge boost for hardware sales. Especially so in the corporate environment where companies investing in the future may choose to purchase Macs so that they can have more OS choices without having to switch hardware.

And regardless of what "hammer" says, there are many apps out there that businesses rely on that are only available for Windows. Some software companies simply choose to ignore the Mac market, many times because there is not enough demand to meet the programming costs. It does not mean that the software is crap.

Bob C.
OS/2 had no installed base. They couldn't get started from scratch with the limitations you listed. Understandible. Apple doesn't have that problem. ADDING Windows capabilities, as an option mind you, only makes Macs more enticing to a larger group beyond its typical customer. I don't see how Intel Macs can cut into OSX's user base.

Who needs to boot into Windows?

How about all those biznizis' who have said they can't possibly switch to Macs since they have all these legacy Windows apps they need to run?

Apple takes the Mac to the Enterprize.

Once OSX is running on Intel, Vmware could release a version of their software for OSX that would allow you to run almost any OS you wanted to as long as it was supportad an x86 based and you had enough memory in your Mac...all at the same time and almost full speed. There are some performance hits.. While this wouldn't work for gaming, consoles are almost certainly the way to go for that down the road..

I have to wonder. Mac on Linux runs OSX quite happily on Yellow Dog. Surely once the i386 (ho ho) version of OSX is shipping, someone will port MoL to Fedora (same code base), and everyone will be able to run Mac apps regardless of hardware.

How is Apple going to control this? Hope that people stay away from Linux? Or introduce software activation?

Mac Developers, read this:

I will never run Windows on my Mactel machine. I will continue to support Apple, Mac OS X and Mac developers with my money ($$$).

It's a year until Leopard is released to the developer community, but in that year Apple could do lots of work to make Wine run flawlessly within it.

Regarding MDN "take" -- I think people will still buy Windows-only Dell boxes because they'll be cheaper hardware than Intel inside Mac hardware.

Personally, I'll continue to buy Mac because its better, not because it will be able to run Windows, too. That has no appeal to me.

Dave H: why can't you boot todays G5 and G4 on OS 9? It is the very same PowerPC than before. Sure Mac users that wanted to run OS 9 on the G5 could hack and get in run on it... Nope. Same thing for OS X on another Intel PC.

The CPU is not the only factor in the equation.

Artisticulated, I hope you're right. I doubt Windows will cut into Mac OS X's software base. I was suggesting it might prevent the base from growing.

One thing is for sure. Some enterprising person or company is going to create commercial software that will enable the effect of VPC, with no emulation slowdown. It can't be that hard.

In fact that enterprising company might be Microsoft itself. That way they'll get a copy of Windows sold on Intel-based Macintoshes.

The opinion are similar to the opinion piece from a blog on macsurfer.

http://timcoughlin.typepad.com/tim_coughlins_blog/2005/06/mactel_the_best.html

I would tend to agree that this is the best thing to happen in a long time. With regards the concerns about developers not making Mac versions it would seem unlikely to be a problem, as they do not have to do much to change their code to make it Mac native. Well, thats how I understand it anyway.

Bill

I think that most software will be made for Windows and X86 since porting will be so much easier due to a common processor. Besides, OS X would make applications look and work better than Windows. Compared to where Apple is today with Spotlight, Dashboard, HD Video, etc Microsoft has fallen behind.

Why not stop developement on Windows. It's insecure, virus ridden, trojan infected, spyware hacked OS. There won't be any measurable improvements even when they release Longhorn 2 years from now. Apple already has the best personal computer operating system in the world. It's safe, secure, stable, no viruses and spyware. It can run any software that Windows could only without the constant fear of being hacked or infected.
So this arguement is moot as far as developers are concerned. There are enough Mac users in the home and business that developers can earn a decent living. And now the Mac is outselling the PC so now more than ever developers can make even more money as consumers see how frustrating windows can get.

Chomper said: "Ummm, if it's not as cheap as Dell, it won't outsell Dell. Good luck."

It has been demonstrated time and time again for several years that when configuring machines from Dell and Apple feature for feature, the pricing is very similar if not favorable to Apple. (I's assuming that Chomper means "inexpensive" rather than "cheap" as Macs are never "cheap".

No where is this more apparent than in the laptop category. Apple makes a much better quality machine for the price than Dell hands down. While it is a bit difficult to do a head-to-head based on features, there is one laptop from each company which can be directly compared to each other.

The challenge comes in finding a well rounded pro laptop from Dell. Turns out, they don't have one. I recently looked in vain for a 15" widescreen notebook from Dell with DVI, Firewire (1394), and a Pentium M CPU. I simply do not understand how any serious player in the laptop market can get away without offering a mid-priced, lightweight, pro laptop in the 15" size category. Maybe a Dell aficionado can point one out but I couldn't find one.

However, Dell DOES have a machine that has Firewire (though not FW800 like Apple offers) and DVI but it only comes in the big ugly brick known as the 17" Inspirion XPS Gen 2. It is only a 2ghz machine (so it is not going to be as fast as the G4 1.67 G4 found in the 17" Powerbook.) but it is pretty comparable otherwise.

Both machines are in the $2800 range and I defy anyone to claim that the plastic Dell is a better quality piece of hardware than the Powerbook. Yes, the Dell IS cheaper, but not less expensive.

In the desktop category it is similarly hard to find anything from Dell as elegant and full-featured as the machines offered by Apple. The tedium of just trying to find worthwhile info from Dell's site on the laptop front keeps me from doing a direct cost comparison of desktops tonight. I'll leave that to others. That said, every year for the last 3 years, my academic computing department did these cost comparisions and never found the Dells to be less money when configured the same as the Macs.

Turns out, HP does compete better than Dell and ultimately we started buying HP machines for those Win users who had to run Word Perfect or some such thing. Dell was never that enticing, price wise for the average user and most of those faculty were moved to the less expensive iMac line.

Cheers,

B

M$ should sell a "Windows Services for MacOS" - sort of an "OS-Lite" - and let people run on Macs. Its a product. They make $. What do they care. Let Apple do the heavy OS lifting.

Goodbye Dell

Goodbye Windows software

Goodbye Microsoft

fare thee well...................................

Beeblebrox,

The average user says: I've got $600 in my pocket. I want a computer with everything on it. (box, peripherals, screen, as much as will fit into that $600)

Show me that $600 Mac... The mini is a step in the right direction, but add peripherals and the likes and you zoom past that $600.

Macs, by nature, are high-end systems and consumers, by nature, are, on average (or rather, median), low-end buyers.

Would I like to drive in a Rolls? I would, but even if I had the money for a Rolls, I'd sooner spend it on a cheap Taiwanese car and have enough left to buy another one and make a good downpayment on a house. Because that Taiwanese car runs, too. Not as well or as comfy as the Rolls, but it gets me where I want to.

You may be overestimating the budget most people are willing to spend on a computer. The added value of he Mac experience does not entice them to spend more.

Once the Mac experience can be had for the same amount of money ('as cheap as'), we can kiss Windows goodbye. Provided that making the Mac 'cheap' does not ruin the experience. That might prove to be Apples biggest challenge for the mid-term future.

@ Possibilities:

Tx very much for posting the same thing I've been saying since Tuesday.

Boot OS X, run pretty much all the versions of Windows (!), Linux, even Solaris in a window, all using VMWare's ACE product.

If you are a science/technical employee or a heavily science-based company, why in the name of all that's holy would you choose a platform that forces you to boot a horrendously insecure, discredited OS (and then pretty much tries to prevent you from running anything else) against the option of booting into a secure, stable OS which takes a laissez-faire attitude to you using other environments.

I know cost is a big driver in these things, having worked - to my eternal damnation - on the project that migrated BP's Mac user base to Windows 95 and then onwards to Windows 2000, but I'll be monitoring the gossip to see if the Macintel switch causes the tide to flow the other way, or at least starts the conversation.

(Banging head against wall)

To BobC, about OS/2
There's a big difference between then and now. Then, there was not a clear advantage to using OS/2 over Windows. Now, everyone knows about the security problems in Windows, virii, zombies, etc. I think people will jump at a PC that can run all their old Windows programs without having to constantly update their virus checkers, spyware programs, etc.

Hybrid,

Even if what you were saying was true (and I believe the facts do not bear out your case given the fact that laptops, even inexpensive ones, outsell desktops in this country), read what I wrote again. By your logic no one would buy Dell either. Since quite a few Dell products are similar in price to the Apple line and actually have lower quality and less features then no one should be buying Dell either.

My primary point is that all of the comments in this and other threads where people are saying "why should I buy a Mac now that it will run Wndows? I can just buy a Dell." To which I say, fine, go out and buy a more expensive crappy piece of hardware if you want. Personally, I'll stick with the primo hardware from Cupertino that just happens to be of similar or sometimes even lower price than Dell.

-B

P.S. I would say that, for the most part, Macs cannot be compared to a Rolls Royce. That would be more like a Cray or something. A Mac is like a Toyota (including the PowerMac/Lexus). The Dell like a Ford, Toshiba like your Taiwanese car. (Don't we all love the computer=car analogy! )

RR Cook,

You make a good point when you make a distinction between "running Windows" and "running Windows APPLICATIONS".

-D

I am now left wondering to what car one of my self-built low end crappy systems (as opposed to several self-built high end ninja PCs) would compare? A hotrod built from stock parts or something? :D

The car analogy, it's so annoying and yet so enticing to use

Err... That was not a post by Beeble, but my me, meant to be adressed to Beeble.

An accident with a failing anti-conception device and a timemachine, or how was that again?