MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

To: Dell and HP

Be afraid...be very afraid!

What will happen when Wall Street figures it out is that you will wish you had bought when the share price was in the 60s. As it is now.

MW: "attack" as in seize the day. Now.

What happens when you use fast OS switching and come up with a BSOD? If Windows has been running in the background for an unknown time, what are the chances it's still up when you want it?

I'm just talkin' here. This could be really cool.

The strategy is unfolding before our eyes and it is beautiful.

MW bill. I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill....

If this can work with OSX, it can work with windows.
So MDN your statement:
""Why buy a Dell (or any other assemblers' boxes) if Apple Macs can run Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux operating systems and applications at native speeds?""

could also read:

"Why buy a Mac if Windows PCs can run Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux operating systems and applications at native speeds?"

not going to happen. CFO already said they won't condone nor impede Windows use

have you not read about the patents Apple has gotten nor the quotes given about protecting OS X from running on non-Apple hardware (with the exception of the current X86 version out there now)

When I go home this Christmas I'm installing OSX on my old Pentium 4!

What a bad idea. I can just see it now: Fast whizzy interface switching effect. Solid secure OS X 10.4 running on base window 1, vulnerable hacker's dream windows 2K, XP, or Vista running in fastswitch mode on cube side 2. Presto..changeo. Only since the OS is always loaded, it's always exposed to the internet. Whoopee... Score! Now hacker boys and girls all over the net get to attack OS X machines to their heart's delight. Load a worm on the windows partition, then hack away.

Windows of any version is so bad it should only be used to invoke those legacy apps that cannot be run in os X and should be closed down immediately thereafter, or isn't computer security more important to most users than whizzy effects?

"Really" hasn't been catching up on his reading about the Intel version of OS X. It is supposed to be bound to Apple hardware, meaning that you won't be able to run it on vanilla PCs by Dell or some other crappy manufacturer. Windoze doesn't have that same hardware tie-in. So, an Intel Mac can run Mac OS, Windows, Linux, etc. The Dell box can't run Mac OS.

Just 'cause you asked...

Oh come on!
"Apple already has the interface technique in place" congratulations! apple can rotate a cube with 2 textures, must be a very hard thing to do in openGL.
It would be very nice though to run different OSes for what they're best at. OS X for most stuff and windows for games (after unplugging the computer from the net that is).

What incentive for Ballmer's "developers" to write OS X code?
Will leave Mac apps from Apple as only OS X on market (not counting sourceforge, other opensource)

CFO already said they won't condone nor impede Windows use

--

They won't condone Windows use?? They didn't say that!

Schiller said they wouldn't impede or SUPPORT it, meaning, you can't phone Apple for Windows problems ( tee hee)

I'm forced to use Windows at work as a real estate agent.Being able to use windows on a Mac would be great.Current Windows people will be able to see just how much better OSX is first hand.
Imagine how frustrating it will be when switching from OSX to Windows running in the background for the last couple of hours.The cube spins around and you have a couple hundred pop ups waiting for you.

This type of functionality is more likely to show up in Leopard, which is due in about 1 year. I expect Apple to migrate their OS and applications as they typically do, adding functionality as they can.

I believe that the rest of Tiger will bug-fixes, and making the intel/ppc code base as stable as possible.

The types of technologies that the are article talks about are more of a 10.X release than a 10.X.X release if they are incorporated at all.

For a historical note, how many remember "Switcher" that preceded multifinder and allowed switching from, say, MacWrite to MacPaint without quitting MacWrite? It was written by Andy Herzfeld and had the same visual effects as user switching?

Apple should license this to HP or someone they can work with. I don't mean clones, but license in the sense of the defunct HP iPod. Gov't purchasing often needs to have 2 sources for a product, for competitive bids. And there are many who wouldn't hesitate to buy an HP Mac but wouldn't ever purchase from Apple.

Just a thought...

I remember "Switcher." I also remember "talking moose" - 'You are getting sleeeepy! Your eyelids are getting heavier and heavier.'

"Why buy a Mac if Windows PCs can run Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux operating systems and applications at native speeds?"

Ummm, like MDN quoted Phil Schiller as saying that Mac OS X will run only on Mac hardware?

The recent articles about getting OS X to run on generic Intel hardware is simply because that version of OS X is a timed developer version that will bomb out in less than a year. The final version of Mac OS X for Intel will be locked hand-in-hand to Apple hardware. There will be no Windows PCs that will be able to run OS X.

This is truly a stupid idea.

Can you imagine how complicated the user interface will be for your average non technical person. Multiple operating systems with different ways of doing things is not the way that Apple will go.

Now if Windows apps can be run (but look like OS X apps), that would be cool and a much better way to go.

Well yeah, whatever…I don't care to run Windows on my Mac—ever.

I would like to add that the only danger of simple virtualization scheme is that developers might use it to justify not building a Mac version of apps. They'll just say, "We recommend installing Windows on your PowerBook and using our Windows installer." Heck, there are a lot of companies that already do that today, except they recommend installing Virtual PC.

Virtualization would be a neat technology, but it has to be inaccessible or inconvenient enough that hordes of Switchers begin demanding robust Mac-native versions of apps.

I still have Talking Moose. You can get it for sys X. goto http://www.zathras.de/moose/MacOS_X_Version.php

just a thought, it would be quite possible to write viruses for windows that affects mac os x if you dualboot. It would just have to search the drives for mac os x and write to it. good thing Windows doesn't play well with hfs+ at the moment.

I've asked this before - and maybe it's been covered by someone before - but why is it that this is good for the Apple platform and its applications? What happens if developers stop to code natively for OSX because "you just have to switch to windows (with F8) if you want the app to work". Of course I'd prefer a native speed windows "virtual environment" at hand compared to the piece o shite app called VPC - but let's face it - windows aint comparable to OSX when it comes to GUI workflow (among a plethora of other advantages!).

Let's run Windows apps in a Windows emulator without all the problems involved with actually having Windows on your beautiful Apple Mac.

Utility without ugly or malware attacks.

I remember switcher and multifinder. They made a huge difference in productivity. We didn't have to shut down TK! Solver or Multiplan to use the word processor.

Aw, NewType...didn't see your comment oh well

Why would sensible people bother running Windows or Linux?

Hey Veronica, apps! I would love to finally be able to run Rhino on my setup...among some other really nice 3D/VFX stuff never been brought to OSX for unknown reasons :(

Holy Buddha that would be hot.

I might put Windows on my Mac just to use some special quilting programs that I now run a cheap PC. But I don't think I would allow Windows on my Mac to connect to the internet, at least not for long.

KEEP THAT WINDOZE CRAP OFF MY MACS

wow. another rhino user. most intuitive 3d modeling software out there =)

I think this all fits into Apple's plans. Remember, they consider themselves a hardware company. There goal is to sell boxes. Anything that will add value to their box is a good thing. That's why OS X will never be licensed to any other computer maker, it would add value to their product and take away from Apple's. That's why they will allow other operating systems to run on Mac, it increases the Mac's value. And it someday (God forbid) Mac OS X becomes a liability, it will be gotten rid of just like OS 9.

Why? AutoCAD and all the other Windows only apps you MacMorons. Wonder why the article is at Architosh? Some of you should just be quiet when you don't have anything constructive to say.

Oh and games.

Its bad enough right now, when I ask about Mac support from my IT department they tell me "Oh, you can just run program X on Virtual PC on your Mac". If Windows runs natively on Mac I think any reason to support Macs or write Mac versions of software will go out of the window for certain parts of the computer industry.

I can see it now. "Sorry Sir - you can't use our Cable modem with Mac, you'll have to run Windows on your machine instead."

Don't forget!!

Microsoft is relying upon thier Direct X for video cards, install Vista on a software partition and it will run like VPC.. s-l-o-w.

Even if Microsoft allows it at all. Mac's use Open GL.

I doubt Apple will allow Vista to run because it allows third party software makers to insist their customers switch into Vista to run their programs.

These third party software makers don't like to program twice just to cater to 30 million Mac users.

What most likely will happen is Apple will provide a easier and cheaper way for third party programmers to compile their code for Mactels, reducing development costs.

The Mac platform will them be attractive to support, write once, compile for both at native speed.

Allowing a large alternate OS like Windows to reside on a Mac will deteriorate the Mac user base, although Apple might sell a lot of hardware with all their stores.

Rememeber Beta-Max? It was better, but it died anyway.

Mac OSX will only run on Apple hardware
Mac OSX will only run on Apple hardware

"If so, and only Apple Macs will be able to offer Mac OS X along with any other operating system a users chooses, the question we've been asking since June only gets louder, "Why buy a Dell (or any other assemblers' boxes) if Apple Macs can run Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux operating systems and applications at native speeds?" And what happens when Wall Street figures it out?"

Because the TCO formula posted on this site is BS. It takes nothing to keep a pc free of bugs these days, and anyone who says otherwise is either behind the curve or.........dumb....and dells, and others, will still be much CHEAPER.

Quote me on that.

Joe McConnell -- There you go again. Always coming at things from an advanced user's perspective.

"It takes nothing to keep a PC free of bugs these days . . . "?????????

Are you KIDDING?

For the average user, it's a HUGE issue. And it doesn't matter -- because Macs have NO ISSUES AT ALL IN THIS AREA!!!!!!!!!

You are a . . . Dipshit. Troll. Jackoff.

In effect, it will almost be just like how the transition from OS 9 to OS X was only this time OS 9 is Windows. First the dual-boot option, then later when the need is almost gone and everyone has made the transition, no need for windows support anymore! Brilliant.

The adoption of Intel chips by Apple Computer is a mistake.

People here rightly tout the fact that MacOS will contain technology to ensure it will only run on Apple hardware (by checking against a hardware chip). What people seem to have failed to notice, however, is that Microsoft are probably including this capability in the next release of Windows - it was originally called Palladium and is designed to vastly improve security and DRM by only allowing authorised programs/documents to run. This involves a low-level hardware check that the hardware is authorised, which then continues right through the system - ie. the OS will only boot if on approved hardware, the applications only run if on an approved OS, a document only open if on approved hardware, etc. Thus Microsoft would presumably be more than capable of ensuring that Windows wouldn't run on Apple's Intel machines as well. So, you might still need that Dell.

See http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html for more details.

OS2 ran windows apps fine, and that was its undoing. If you are going to make running Windows apps easy on a Mac then nobody is going to develop for the Mac. Ditto switching between Windows and OSX.. The MDN take is wrong, people can already see the difference between the two clearly enough and the vast majority still choose Windows.... The Mactel will not change that.

The danger of advertising a Mactels ability to run Windows or Windows apps. is that it will just reinforce the image of ubiquity of Windows in consumers minds, leading them to believe that it is the only OS to own. I think that Mac OSX should be competing with Windows and sending out a clearer signal to end users, i.e. you don't need Windows, you can do all you need with a Mac. In the same way as iPod users know that they don't need WMP files to enjoy good audio. If the iPod had supported WMP files from the outset do you think that AAC files would ever have got a look in later in the game? Mac OSX can take more market from Windows, but by competing with it directly (which includes the whole widget remember, not just software) not supporting it on a Mac.

I would add that the ability to run both OSX and Windows will be a massive incentive to anyone considering buying a new computer who would like to try OSX. For someone say who currently has a Mac and a PC and is thinking abut replacing their aging PC, a Mactel would be a strong candidate. Apple will no doubt pick up a lot more sales like this in future. For an actual Windows vs OSX battle though I think you would need to see OSX numbers in the 30% region before that would be a serious possibility. Whatever happens, I for one hope that we never return to a situation in future where one architecture dominates 90% of computers..... the future would best be served by competing systems that are interoperable and compatible and that adopt open standards. Diversity and compatibility are what is needed.

>>Why would sensible people bother running Windows or Linux?

Involuntarily, of course...I have to run Windows to use the statistical software I need for school, so I keep VPC and Windows 2000 on my Pbook, just to run that. Of course, I don't allow Windows to connect to the 'net. Anyhow, it's so slow it's almost painful-I'm hoping some extra RAM will help when I install it in a few weeks-but since I have to use Windows, at least for the time being, the ability to run it more efficiently is pretty appealing.

ZZG

"This idea doesn't kill Microsoft right away (eventually it will, though, as users compare Mac OS X to Windows and end up using Windows less and less until they realize that they don't need Windows at all), but Dell, HP, Gateway, Acer, etc. wouldn't fare every well pretty much immediately."

LOL! MS is a $40B a year company with as much in the bank. Talk about wishful thinking...they'll fight like hell and underestimating them would be downright crazy. How many people really need virtualization? I plan on buying a mac sometimes in the next 9 months but I'm not sure I'm willing to pay $4K CDN for virtualization because you'd need a machine with lots of horsepower to run it. I like the idea but $4K would buy me a mini or iMac, a pc, a KVM switch and still have money for a trip to Mexico.

Apple is still the most vulnerable computer company around because any setback could be fatal or permanent and I won't get into Apple as a transformed entertainment company. That's another story.

I hope they can recapture a large chunk of market share but being arrogant about it is a sure-fire way to screw up success.