“Apple has shiny new x86 based iMacs and the eloquently named MacBooks (yech) out on the market, and reviews, barring a few fawning toadies in the print media, are exceptionally rare. The usual Apple cooked benchmarks abound, but there is no real third party analysis, I think mainly because it is afraid of what will be found. The biggest bloomer is its tacit non-denials of the fact that the current x86 macs will never run XP in an approved or corporately acceptable fashion, and Vista is a long long long shot. Apple knows, is doing nothing to quell the rumours and speculation, and I think that’s irresponsible.”
Can we mark the lead for this story -1 Flamebait?
Agreed. After all, they’ve already said they won’t support it and they don’t make any promises that it’ll work. Letting people read into what you are saying or not correcting every misconception is not a moral fault of Apple.
I wish you could “unrecommend” stories and that you could see a stories recommmendation rating on the front page.
I don’t think anyone thinks its a moral error.
They think that it is an error in business strategy, compounded by grave errors in communication.
It has nothing to do with what Mac users want, or what they think Apple should do, or about what anyone feels.
People, particularly Mac enthusiasts, need to stop feeling about this issue. Then maybe they could start thinking.
What the hell does he mean by ‘officially’? All he’s saying is that Apple isn’t going to support it. Well no shit, Sherlock. Apple doesn’t support Linux and yet Terrasoft is an Apple-authorized reseller. In theory, someone could do the same with XP by re-selling dual-boot (or even tri-boot) systems. Apple’s already said they wouldn’t prevent it… but they won’t actively work to support it either.
The arguments in this article could be made about any business. Wow, a company isn’t going to support something they don’t sell. Stop the presses. I guess this means Dell is not going to officially support hacked versions of OS X on their hardware either. Those bastards.
This article makes quite a few statements that defy logic. It will never happen? Of course it will. Geeks have spent much more time on much less. Apple didn’t call you back and therefore everything you’ve said is correct? Apple wouldn’t call me back either… that doesn’t mean anything I assume about the inner-thoughts and goals of the company is true.
It’s stupid to try and support an argument when you ignore any evidence that contradicts what you’re saying
I think they should let us add to a poster’s score for more than 5 points… this comments sums it all up very nicely.
No kidding. He seems to be assuming the “corporate” customers would want to buy these systems to run XP for some reason, which would be ridiculous.
There are already some EFI-based motherboards shipping, with the legacy BIOS module (and probably without much else) active. It’s not an impossible problem.
And there’s always Virtual PC/VMWare/Darwine which will appear at some point.
He missed a few details in his flamebaiting though. Apple’s EFI won’t even read “standard” x86 partition tables, or standard bootable DVDs. This is the first major problem that needs to be overcome, assuming you actually want XP to run on your Mac. You can also update EFI on an existing system by adding modules, etc. The author seems to think it’s in a ROM or something.
I suppose it’s also possible (but unlikely) that someone will figure out a way to make XP boot from a proper EFI system without all that legacy crap it requires now.
Personally, if I can find a way to run my XP games on an x86 Mac at near-native speed (Cedega, hear my prayers!), I’m dropping my existing x86 box like a cobra.
– chrish
I see a lot of anger directed at Apple for not working hard enough to get XP running on their machines, but I never hear anyone complaining that Microsoft isn’t tweaking XP to work on a Mac.
Why should Apple have to provide legacy support (BIOS) for software that they have never supported in the first place?
When Apple said they weren’t going to do anything to prevent people from installing Windows on their machines I think they meant “If you can get it to work, all the power too you, but don’t expect us to do it for you.”
It would have been very simple for Apple to have thrown in the CSM with their EFI.
So, Apple doesn’t need the CSM to boot OS X, but it wouldn’t hurt to have it there, and it would have been a huge benefit to their customers.
Am I pissed? Sure am, because what would have been very little effort on their part is leaving me w/ a situation that is a huge pain on my part. I think Apple should have thrown a bone to those of us who have gone to a fair bit of expense and trouble to try and make their products work in a Windows world.
I have to use Visio for my job. I use a Mac for work, but it’s not supported so I have to figure out how to make it all work, which I’ve used Virtual PC for in the past. So, I order a new MacBook Pro, because my current 1Ghz TiBook is a bit old.
So, my solution now is to keep my old TiBook around, just so it can run Virtual PC.
At this point, I like Apple’s products better than anyone elses, but I don’t like Apple as a company. I think they are arrogant and elitist at their customers expense. When Vista ships, I will certainly give it serious consideration, but until then OS X remains the best option.
– Kelson
Note: Omnigraffle is not a reasonable solution, it only saves in .vdx format. When you use Visio to save into .vdx, alot of the pictures don’t work or it screws up the image, and the files are about 8-10x larger. Also, everyone uses the default proprietary .vsd format.
Well why don’t you either wait until MSFT upgrades VPC which they have said they would. or see if Darwine will run Visio.
Not only is Darwine a better solution as it wouldn’t require a reboot, but it will be the faster solution.
Will one day MSFT apps run on OSX and OS X apps run on Windows. I doubt it. MSFT and Apple are still stuck in the old my way only world, unlike Linux were you get your choice of Window Managers and one WM can run apps written for the other.
When MSFT releases VPC, I will probably use that.
However, my ideal solution would be VMWare, I like their products better than MSFTs.
I didn’t like WINE on Linux, and don’t much care for Darwine. I don’t want Windows apps running natively in my OS X. I want them in in a nice walled off virtualized environment, like VPC or VMWare or in a dual boot scenario where they don’t mess w/ my OS X environment.
Also, for any windows based games, it would be nice to be able to just boot over to Windows, play the game, then boot back into OS X for day to day use.
The idea is to have a full speed windows environment available for specific needs, but leaving OS X as the general purpose environment.
– Kelson
I woudl submit that as time goes on your “Games” will also be running on MacOSX. There are a good many companies working on every popular game now and that is the reason I have a console so that I don’t miss out on many games.
You don’t know whether it would have been simple, because you’re not an Apple EFI engineer.
You basically answered your own complaint by saying that Apple doesn’t need CSM to boot OS X. That’s it. OS X does not need CSM, therefore implementing CSM would only be done to benefit other operating systems. Apple said they wouldn’t be actively working to make installing/using other OSes easier.
You are pissed, but you have no right to be. Installing/using Windows on Macintels was never a guarantee. It was hopeful speculation. The people who rushed out and bought Macintels expecting to install Windows flawlessly and dual-boot should really have thought about things beforehand.
I don’t have to be an Apple EFI Engineer to know if it would have been simple or not. Maybe I am an Intel EFI engineer, you have no idea. Just because YOU don’t understand something doesn’t mean no one else does.
You are missing the point, CSM doesn’t benefit other operating systems, it benefits their customers who might have a specific need for another operating system.
I’m fully aware that it was never a guarantee. But, I can still be pissed off about their decision. I don’t have to like what they do just because they are Apple.
Yes, I suppose we should have expected Apple to make sure they put in a specific technological barrier to loading windows, then run around saying “We won’t prevent you..hahahah….”.
Whatver…
– Kelson
It doesn’t sound like you know what you’re talking about at all. I’ll state it again: It is not Apple’s wish, nor is it a responsibility, to be doing active development and implementing something that is 100% useless to OS X. Their customers want Macs because they’re Macs. You’re forgetting that most people are going to be buying Macs simply because Macs are what they want. Very few people are/were interested in running Windows on one.
When you think about it, nothing at all has changed about Intel Macs, except that they have a different piece of silicon doing most of the processing. It still looks and feels like a Mac. That’s the point.
You can be just as pissed off about the fact that a G5 won’t boot Windows. Just because something is x86 doesn’t mean it automatically has to run Windows, and that if the company doesn’t make it easy, then they are evil and stupid.
They didn’t purposely implement any technological barrier against Windows. They designed things so that they’d work in the best way possible for *THEM*, for OS X, and for Mac users. If XP doesn’t support EFI, tough. If Macs can’t boot off UDF media, tough. Booting off UDF is not a requirement of installing OS X. Intel Macs are not meant to be Windows-running x86 PCs. Again, it goes back to “They did nothing active in order to facilitate booting of non-OS X OSes.”
I agree. I would rather Apple spend their R&D dollars on making better hardware and software. Not ensuring that a “competitors” product works with little benefit to themselves.
Yes and I sure that some people will buy a Mac when dual boot is working. But I am sure that some smart marketeers work at Apple. If it was “projected” they would make more money whilst maintaining their place in the market they would include it. They are a public company and as such has a responsiblity to shareholders.
Intel already wrote the CSM. Apple just chose not to include in their EFI.
Your argument that very few people are interested in running Windows on one is proven false by the very existance of Virtual PC, which was a highly successful product. People paid for this, becuase they have a need to run Windows apps on occassion on their Mac.
I’m fully aware of what technical changes occured with Apples move from PPC to Intel.
I don’t really care about the G5, because that issue does not personally affect me. However, I do recall a large number of complaints when Virtual PC did not work on the G5 until 7.0 came out. I also did not claim that Apple is evil or stupid, I claimed they were arrogant, and I stand by that claim.
They very purposefully choose not to include the CSM. You may not have any experience with large commercial development, but you can bet they discussed including CSM and specifically said they did not want to implement it. In the end, they probably said that including CSM would be an implicit admission that OS X does not have everything anyone could need, so from a marketing perspective did not include it.
I can understand why Apple made the decision they did, but it frustrates me because I lose functionality over what I currently have. On my current G4 Powerbook, I can run Virtual PC which allows me to get my job done. With the new MacBook, I can’t.
I’m sure that as soon as VMWare or Virtual PC comes out for x86 OS X, I won’t care anymore, but until then it’s a real pain. The other issue being the replacement of the PCMCIA card w/ the Expresscard leaving me w/ an EVDO contract for which I can’t use the service.
But hey, my TiBook is on it’s last leg, and I have to get 3 years out of whatever system I buy, so the MacBook is my only option.
If the MacBook would have been able to run Windows, it would have hit the absolute sweet spot for me, allowing me to use OS X and in a compatibility crunch, fall back to XP if I need. It’s just back to waiting….
– Kelson
So let me get this straight …
You bought a MacBook, full well knowing that nothing was guaranteed (not even VirtualPC/VMware availability), and now you’re complaining?
That’s really all it comes down to.
You’re being very unfair. You are used to having Virtual PC. Which is not available (yet) on Intel Macs.
And now Apple suddenly sucks for not helping to dual boot XP?
Microsoft sucks for not announcing or already HAVING a Virtual PC version for Intel Macs! THAT is your problem, don’t blame Apple.
Really…apart of the case and point.
The Intel/mac thing is like 4 weeks olds. Laptops just shipped and everyone is all crazy like they were when MacOSX dropped. All the MacOS9 dudes were all crazy….this will all pass with time and you will all see the errors of your ways and keep giving me a bad score…thanks!
You preach it rev. You preach it.
You don’t know whether it would have been simple, because you’re not an Apple EFI engineer.
FYI – Intel created EFI, and I should certainly think that Intel would attempt to keep compatibility with their existing platform and the software which runs on it for the purposes of maintaining marketshare.
Apple is indeed arrogant. Steve Jobs is arrogant and in some ways a bigger pain than Gates. But, they do make amazing products and Windows is and will continue to be a nightmare for the forseeable future.
For example. I have a 2GB USB microdrive formatted in FAT32. I needed to download some drivers for a server and install them. So I open IE on my XP work laptop, go to the site, click the link for the URL. It ends up being an FTP link so IE dutifully gives me a list of the files and directories. I connect the USB microdrive.. it will not mount on the desktop and it does not appear in the disk manager. Gah!!
I connect the microdrive to the Mac Mini on my desk and the FAT32 drive mounts as it should. I open Safari, go to the links for the drivers and the FTP directory shows up as a Finder window so I can drag filees and directories straight to the microdrive.
This is but one example of many. Yes, Windows works sometimes. But examples like this are typical of my Windows experience and also the experience of my friend as well.
This does not take away from the elitist nature of Apple. They need to step down off the soap box and keep making good computers.
I don’t understand Apple folks. They would sell more computers by supporting XP on Mac.
Or they could create a situation where developers don’t make software for Macs anymore. Instead they’d make everything for windows only and tell people “it’ll run XP, put that on it and buy the regular version”.
Or they could create a situation where developers don’t make software for Macs anymore. Instead they’d make everything for windows only
Other than Adobe, don’t they pretty much do that already ?
Oh Adobe, Microsoft, Macromedia (Which is Adobe I know but before that happen.)
We have a bunch of small software shops too that make soem great software.
Plus as a home user you have not lived until you have used and understand iLife. That $80 application alone is where I spend most of my time. I am a hobby photographer and I have afamily I shoot movies of. I also like music….plus I have a web site…all those things work together and know and help each other work. You don’t have anything on Windows that can do that….so if you want to know who is short in the pants on Software then you need to start looking at Windows…it has a bunch of headless non-functaional applications that don’t knwo what the meaning of work together is?
Edited 2006-02-15 18:08
Plus as a home user you have not lived until you have used and understand iLife. That $80 application alone is where I spend most of my time. I am a hobby photographer and I have afamily I shoot movies of. I also like music….plus I have a web site…all those things work together and know and help each other work. You don’t have anything on Windows that can do that….so if you want to know who is short in the pants on Software then you need to start looking at Windows…it has a bunch of headless non-functaional applications that don’t knwo what the meaning of work together is?
Just because a group of apps work together doesn’t mean they do a better job than apps that do these individual task seperate. In fact, they usually *don’t* do it better.
The integration is nice for Joe Sixpack, but most power users aren’t willing trade that over functionality. For example – iTunes. Nice app for my parents, but I personally would never use it. My setup is quite a bit more sophisticated .. and powerful
Edited 2006-02-15 20:23
“For example – iTunes. Nice app for my parents, but I personally would never use it.”
I don’t understand this statement. If you use an iPod, or not, and you would like an environment to listen to music on your computer you like the competitors versions, or would you opt for the pro jukebox software and play DJ all day?
The iLife suite is of great use to a media professional. Not for ,layin’ down the final tracks or editing that movie, but to create simply, easily and quickly. It cannot be beat. It has it’s usfulness as a piece of paper and pencil does to a computer.
So iLife is not only good for my parents, but my kids, cousins and myself… even though I go pro with DAWs and Video Editing.
IMHO, of course
Jb
I don’t understand this statement. If you use an iPod, or not, and you would like an environment to listen to music on your computer you like the competitors versions, or would you opt for the pro jukebox software and play DJ all day?
I prefer a combination of a mp3 player that acts as a UMS device (so I can use whatever the hell I want) plus a file manager that does’t suck. When it comes to transferring files to the device, I just plug it in, then a quick global hotkey gives me a 2-pane view in my file manager – one side is my mp3 player and the other is where all my mp3s are. This whole process takes about 3-4 seconds, which is at least twice as fast as what it would take to even START iTunes. From there, the sky’s the limit .. I can view/sort in whatever manner I wish (filename, artist, bitrate, etc), or I can even group the songs by folders or a flat-file view if I want.
And I can do all this without hving to ‘import’ my mp3 files into anything or having some lame-ass application trying to decide for me how my files should be named.
As I said, iTunes (and I’m sure the other iLife apps as well) is a good choice for people who just want the damn thing to work and don’t need a lot of flexability, but it’s definitely NOT a ‘one size fits all’ kind of thing.
So iLife is not only good for my parents, but my kids, cousins and myself… even though I go pro with DAWs and Video Editing.
I pretty much go pro with everything
Although I don’t do video editing at all.
I am a power user too, but I see the value in those applications to all users and I am so sorry you don’t have anyone to take pictures of, moves of and love you, I do and I have a hard disk full of wonderfull things and the Mac just makes them better.
I was just pointed it out.
“My setup is quite a bit more sophisticated .. and powerful
”
Nice shot but I have a Mac and mine is better than yours and you know it. To bad you are not as sophisticated as you PC? You want to get dirty and we can do that.
I think the truth of the matter is we all have something you all can’t fathom and you can use for whatever hair brained excuss you have come up with not to like Apple of Mac.
Like : “My setup is quite a bit more sophisticated .. and powerful”
Keep fooling yourself, but if you have the set up YOU like then please by all means stay over there, we don’t need you sour mouthed comments about how easy a Mac is to use and how it just runs with no effort.
Lastly the XP OS was not build for you the geek, it was built for home users and so was the mac, so do what you do with it is yoursconcern just please leave your Powerfull large over compensating PC out of it.
Good Lord…no one gets it. It’s like talking to a bunch of Windows Admins about Linux.
as400tek – “..but I have a Mac and mine is better than yours and you know it.”
Just because you have a Mac doesn’t mean it’s the best. It just means it was probably more expensive.
The arrogance some of you fan-boys have about your Macs really is amazing.
They would sell more computers by supporting XP on Mac.
Possibly. But would they sell so many more that it would outweigh the costs of supporting it?
“I don’t understand Apple folks. They would sell more computers by supporting XP on Mac.”You can run XP IN OS X quite nicely and not even have to reboot. Besides, running XP in OS X is arguably more secure than most XP installations. I’m also quite sure that for most people this is fine and that once they use OS X, they’ll have little need for XP after all of their documents are transferred.
When you buy Apple, you buy an integrated system, not just an OS slapped on some generic computer hardware. Why is this so hard to understand?
When you buy Apple, you buy an integrated system, not just an OS slapped on some generic computer hardware. Why is this so hard to understand?
Quoted because many seemed to have missed this point…
It is hard to understand because it is not true. There is nothing more integrated about the combination of a Seagate drive, an Intel processor, some Samsung memory and an Asus main board…..when combined with OSX and a case, than when combined with XP and a case.
What is hard to understand is why people keep saying this stuff.
Note I am not saying don’t buy it. You may like Vuitton, I may not. Do what you want, its your money. Just don’t tell me all kinds of nonsense about why its better and why I should buy it too.
The integration comes from The seamlessness that exists between the hardware(peripherals are the key part in integration, not the stupid crap they shove in the box) and software. XP just does not have that.
The integration comes from The seamlessness that exists between the hardware(peripherals are the key part in integration, not the stupid crap they shove in the box) and software. XP just does not have that.
Sure it does! Take away 95% of the hardware supported on XP and run on a locked 5% support with drivers included within the master OS install and you have acheived the same result.
For that matter – only buy peripherals that are listed on the WHQL that shipped with RTFM XP – then you are guaranteed to work every time just plug it in. The only difference here is the far greater variety of hardware available for the operating system, and the model under which the associated drivers are designed to support it.
NO operating system has complete 100% support for every single piece of hardware out there. As far as windows is concerned this support is far more complete than any other operating system yet created as a result of its sheer popularity.
I hate to break it to you bud but there ARE perihperals which require driver installs on a MAC just like on every other operating system on the face of the earth.
This only gets complicated when you fail to follow instructions.
“There is nothing more integrated about the combination of a Seagate drive, an Intel processor, some Samsung memory and an Asus main board…..when combined with OSX and a case, than when combined with XP and a case. ”
Except for the fact that Apple can develop OSX with a known subset of hardware and perform quality assurance on that combination. Can Microsoft perform quality assurance for XP running on every combination of hardware that anybody might throw together from a flea market? I don’t think so…
“All shipping MacIntelIntoshes are based on Yonah, a strictly 32-bit CPU, so that shuts the door on all current and future versions of Win64”
It’s widely expected that desktop Intel Macs (Mac Pros) will use Intel’s Conroe CPU, which is the 64-bit version of Yonah and runs at higher clock frequencies.
Here’s my perspective on why Apple might have gone a little out of their way to make dual-booting XP not easy on the Intel Macs. Suppose you have dual-booting OS X and XP on your computer and your XP installation gets a serious virus that hoses your hard drive or steals/erases private data. Won’t that make you Mac less secure and less stable? In some ways, having XP on your Mac is a liability. Not to mention the fact that companies like Blizzard would just tell you “you wanna play WOW? boot up into XP bud….”
A big share of Apple’s market is Apple diehards and elitists in general; people for aim who pay more to differ. Apple’s switch to Intel’s CPU threatens this image of MAC and the only way to preserve is, through touph policies that keep mac different to a pc.
I totally agree with plainstyle!
A big share of people who say Apple’s market is made up of people who want to be different are people who use Windows and do not know anything about Apple’s market.
I don’t think that plainstyle said that Apple’s market is made up of people who want to be different, or that its the only reason to buy apple. He said that people who want to be different is a good share of apple’s market. Elitists buy ipod cause it gives a status, this doesn’t mean that ipod is not good, or that everyone who has an ipod is an elitist!
Why on gods green earth would you want to run XP at all much less on a Mac? I don’t care what you all think, I am a mac head and I really don’t have to run XP for anything. MacOSX is doing everything I need and then some. So for all of you who want XP on the Mac I think your crazy, but go ahead.
You don’t get the Mac thinking if you think they want to sell more PC because of XP. They do things for us the customer that Microsoft and any PC vendor can’t provide and they do it well. So just move to UNIX/MacOSX and get over it. If you like XP so much stick to your DELL and stop messing with the Apple folks. We are all happy users and we all know why.
Go ahead and have fun with that one.
Congrats as400tek, you get the award for being the first idiot to post “Why would anyone want to run Windows on a Mac”…on *this* page.
There’s always at least one of you.
Is it really that hard to figure out on your own that some people work in offices where Windows is required? Or that some people need to run one or more apps that are Windows only? Or that some people have a huge investment in Windows software and would like to switch to the Mac but continue to use their Windows software until they can afford to switch it over time? Or that there are in fact some Windows apps that are in fact pretty decent?
If you can’t figure this out on your own, how about reading any of the billions of posts from the millions of articles providing news and information about getting Windows or Windows apps to run on the Intel Macs….or how about simply ignoring these articles that are of no interest to you?
a agree with as400tek totaly. Why do you want to boot xp on a mac? you do not need to boot it to run it. something like virtual pc will do for me .
You do know that Virtual PC doesn’t run on intel Macs, right? So, duh, virtual pc for intel would do for me too, but since it doesn’t exist (and probably won’t for a while) I guess it would be nice to be able to run XP when I need it without having to have a second machine on my desk.
I get tired of idiots on osnews and slashdot telling me (and other mac users that also NEED windows) that I don’t ever need to run windows. I’ve been a computer professional for 30 years and I think I can figure out what my job requirements are all by myself. Kiddies telling me “Dude, windoze bloze!” are just annoying.
Oddly enough, people tend to *force* their opinions on everybody else, all the time. I need windows as well, to support my clients. My business is 100% windows free, but I still have to have windows sytems. Right now, we’ve got Macs with VPC + XP setup. It’s not the fastest thing on earth, but it’s good enough.
The intel macs are going to change all this, I won’t have to suffer with terrible performance. Either somebody is going to figure out a way to get XP running in a dual-boot scenario (or maybe Vista will work that way out of the gate) or I’m going to be using VPC on intel macs once it’s released. Until then, the g4 PBs and g5 PMs will have to do!
“You do know that Virtual PC doesn’t run on intel Macs, right? So, duh, virtual pc for intel would do for me too,”
Yes I know but it is going to be a easer to implement and easyer to use. So why is everybody so fixed on booting xp ?
I am forced to agree with as400tek here… Why bother hacking another platform to force it to run something it is not designed to, when you can purchase nearly identical hardware, at half the cost, which will execute your operating system of choice flawlessly?
This is yet another ploy by Apple Corp. to divide their (failing) market from the rest of the world. The truth is, people would purchase a MAC becuase it looks pretty – and then wipe it and put on Windows because its compatible with the rest of the world.
I’ve not met anyone who is stumbling over themselves to purchase a MAC – in fact my personal experience has been quite the opposite, but I digress.
Oh – and for what its worth – OS/X has been running on Intel hardware for YEARS. I seem to recall being able to download ISOs of OS/X Jaguar from Apple’s site that would boot on an Intel BX Chipset board with a PII, yet they were able to do it still utilizing the standard PC BIOS – Go Figure!(tm)
Why on gods green earth would you want to run XP at all much less on a Mac? I don’t care what you all think, I am a mac head and I really don’t have to run XP for anything. MacOSX is doing everything I need and then some. So for all of you who want XP on the Mac I think your crazy, but go ahead.
There are any number of reasons to run XP on your Mac. Would you want to have to run XP all the time just because one application you needed to use was not available for OS X?
Name the Application Mr. Hypothetical? I don’t think you have one and if you did it would be so obscure that only you would want to run it?
That argument is so 1992….
For me the application is Matlab. The PPC version won’t run properly under Rosetta.
You might consider Matlab obscure, but it is to science and engineering as Photoshop is to graphics design or Dreamweaver is to web design. I don’t know the relative sizes of the fields, but Mathworks reported 600,000 Matlab users in 2000, and their reported growth rate as of late has been approximately 25% per year (down from 100% per year from 1978 to the mid 1990s). An estimate of 2m+ Matlab users would not be far off base. That compares fairly well to the reported 4m+ Photoshop users.
Edited 2006-02-15 18:15
Again I rest my case you picked one of the applications that only a few people use, Adobe Photoshop is not rare at all, and if it does not run on Mac yet then you need to call the vendor and stop posting about it not working. This is an easy fix and I am sure they are working on it.
As far as I know Adobe does not run on it right now either…very well. It’s a waiting game. Cool your jets!
I’ve updated my post with numbers. Estimates suggest 1/3 to 1/2 as many Matlab users are Photoshop users (not counting piracy). That’s not a “few people”, especially since, as you say, Photoshop is not rare at all.
Mathematica.
OSX and Windows and ported to universal binaries over a weekend.
Well it’s very nice that Mathematica runs on Intel Macs, but Mathematica isn’t exactly a Matlab replacement. Indeed, the two are rather synergestic — I wouldn’t want to do simulations in Mathematica, while I wouldn’t want to do symbolic calculus in Matlab…
You sound like a typical graphical designer..
“We’ve got Adobe CS and final cut pro, so what else is there?”. Just because you don’t need more than your perfect few OS X apps, it doesn’t mean it’s the same for everyone else.
First off, as rayiner mentioned, there are several applications that are just excellent, but only for Windows.
Where I work we have several custom made applications, and we’re around 100 users. These only run on Windows. And please don’t tell me that’s an isolated incident. Setups like these are seen often, only with bigger userbases at most companies.
And another point would be games. I love games, and Macs aren’t really great for games.
Last, I love Mac OS X, but it’s simply not enough for me to buy a Mac. If I could get a machine that’d run Mac OS X, linux AND Windows, I’d be very, very happy.
The whole “pff! if I don’t need it, you don’t!” attitude is so 1992…
and edit: sorry, didn’t think to actually read the rest of the thread, so don’t mind the late reply
Edited 2006-02-15 23:06
> You don’t get the Mac thinking if you think
> they want to sell more PC because of XP.
Then tell me why they switched from PowerPC to Intel? Not because of money? Why didn’t they keep PowerPC?
Apple is not different. Profit is the most important for them.
Apple is using Intel chips because Intel is making faster and cooler chips than IBM can make. These chips will help Apple’s notebook line the most. As their notebooks have been stalled on the G4. They are not switching to Intel so people can run XP. If XP ever runs then thats a bonus for the customer.
Why on gods green earth would you want to run XP at all much less on a Mac?
Some software companies (particularly smaller ones) don’t support the Mac because the ROI would be too low. Let’s take the example of HB++, a best-in-class development tool for Palm OS applications. This does not run natively on the Mac, nor will it do so anytime soon.
Sometimes you’ve just got to run windows to get access to the best tool for the job.
XP will run on a mac, you will just need virtualization software to make it easy and productive.
On top of that, Why, all of a sudden, has sighting SPEC become cooked benchmarking?
Why won’t Apple support XP? I can’t believe you’re serious.
A completely illogical not to mention poorly written post.
Next time you call your ISP ask them if they’d support another manufacturers modem. Or, your mobile phone service, go buy an unsupported phone and ask them to help you when it doesn’t work.
It’s a business, it’s not cost effective for a business to support every stupid idea that their users have, that’s why they have supported platforms and software.
My Dell doesn’t support Amiga OS *or* IRIX… bastards.
RIGHT ON!
Well Said.
“We won’t do anything so that you can’t run windows XP.”
This is a misleading statement to sell the new Intel Macs and that is wrong.
Mac as a platform will be pretty much done for in a few years from now anyway. Apple will be doing good, but they will be selling consumer electronics and PC’s with Windows Vienna.
Once Mac moved from it’s different platform to be a PC platform that can’t run windows and only the MacOS and now that vista is coming out and vienna after that it’s pretty much over.
“We won’t do anything so that you can’t run windows XP.”
Was said when journalists asked if it could be done. It was not in any advertisement. Customers wanted to know, journalists wanted to know, Apple replied, and we now blame Apple because it doesn’t “just work”.
Grown up, professional people simply know this and wait for some official virtualization software, buy that, then switch to the Intel Mac platform and happily run XP inside a window at 98% native speed.
Trolls and geeks keep complaining until they die and never get any work done. You don’t HAVE to buy an Intel Mac, you don’t HAVE to buy a Mac at all if you need XP that bad!
If you are THAT eager to use a Mac, you’re probably okay with using a PPC Mac for a while… and they’re still available and will be avaiable and supported for a few years.
Microsoft MacIntosh-Windows Intergration Software. Look for it this summer, along with a Intel Mac Only Firmware update and 10.5. Watch with awe as people line up to purchase the MacOS 10.5/MS-MWIS bundle for the bargain price of $495.95 (plus taxes)(for the Intel Mac Only, of course). Gaze in amazement as all those Windows apps now run natively on the Mac. Fawn over the genuis that is Apple/Microsoft.
You are kidding right, or havent you heard the news that Windows will be dropped, in the near future
Answer: It’s not.
Now with Intel in a Mac it’s only a matter of time before the apps you wrote for Windows/Intel will just move over to Mac.
I know I see that going on already. Isin’t C code C code? For the most part yes?
“Congrats as400tek, you get the award for being the first idiot to post”
It was meant to get the reaction you posted, so I guess you would to be the idiot for taking the bait.
Who said that buisnesses are so smart using Windows?
Not Me!
Just because they use it and it’s out there does not make it the right choice. I have to use it at work all day long too. I know how many Widnows Admins you need vs. a UNIX or iSeris shop needs to maintain there network of XP dekstops and users. I have 4 iSeries Servers with over 4000(This is a small shop/ I used to run a shop with 45 iSeries Servers and over 10K users per server and we only had 10 Admins.) users per server and I’t just me. So why is windows so good? I was in a 200 user Windows shop and they had over 5 Windows Admins? 5…you call that a working model?
Maybe your argument is flawed in that you make no good case for Widnows other than because I said so…which never worked when my Mom said it and it ain’t working now.
But you see, you have not even touched on the point at issue, which is that it might be a better business strategy to supply what seems to be a rather large demand for systems that boot XP and OSX, than to refuse to supply it. This is how companies grow, they change their business models in the light of the market.
Not this one, though.
They(Apple) are growing. Now with the Intel “Compiler” on MacOSX you can make a good case to eventually move to Intel/Mac….you all are very short sighted with the “It won’t run XP”
If XP were so grand then why didn’t Apple just make an MacXP laptop for all you who want the coolest looking laptop and the weakest OS?
Why because they are headed in the right direction and XP and Widnows Servers are not. If MS build a finished product that was not half baked before it was delivered then it woudl be a maybe, but everything the drop is not done. I should know I was on the Windows 98 Team and it was not near finished but MS needed to make some money. Apple is about the money too, but they don’t drop half done projects on thier users and if they did they would get a ration. Who are you really going to blame if VISTA is crap? You can’t call MS, they don’t care and HP or DELL can’t do anything. You are just another person who paid for the OS and no one cares and I think that is the important part to what Apple is doing…they don’t want XP on thier units just as much as I don’t want to run someone elses engine in my car. THe dealer won’t support it and it just does not make any sense….you can make it fit and work but why?
People need to realize Apple is selling a Mac. Not just a computer. It would ruin their whole marketing scheme to imply it runs windows like any normal computer.
“People need to realize Apple is selling a Mac. Not just a computer.”
Yes, this is important. Its a bit like GM, its selling you a Chevrolet, not just a car. Or now I think of it, what Quaker is selling. Its selling Quaker Oats, not just a breakfast cereal.
And then there is Crucial, who are not just selling memory, more of a performance facilitator that fits in your memory socket. And Dell, who are selling the whole Dell experience, so valuable, but so hard to define exactly. And Disneyworld, so much more than a theme park….
I cannot stop myself wondering if people get paid to write this stuff, and sincerely hoping they do, because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
Yes, this is important. Its a bit like GM, its selling you a Chevrolet, not just a car.
Not a very smart analogy. Parts made for a Toyota won’t work in a chevy, especially the Enigne management software.
I ahve used this example for years.
Solaris Makes the Hardware and the OS 99.999% Uptime
IBM (iSeries, p Series & zSeries) makes the Hardware and the OS 99.999% Uptime
Apple makes the Hardware and the OS 99.99% Uptime (On Server.)
SGI makes the hardware and the OS 99.999% Uptime
Windows on Generic Hardware – 97.7% uptime ( That is my figures over the past 16 years in IT. Microsoft puts out better figures but then again they have a server in a room doing nothing.)
You starting to pick this up….the mosts reliable OS/Hardware Combos on the face of the earth are made like Apple does it. THe Microsoft Model is flawed in the way in that if they did make the hardware maybe you would have a point somewhere but as it stands right now you don’t have a leg to stand on……
// That is my figures over the past 16 years in IT. Microsoft puts out better figures but then again they have a server in a room doing nothing.//
Unbelievably stupid post.
Playing games on your computer in your parent’s basement doesn’t exactly count for 16 years in IT.
Yes and following the logic of the original article, GM should work harder to ensure that Toyota parts do work in the Chevy…
” Why XP Will Never Officially Work on a Mac ” is stating the obvious. Steve did say that Apple will not support windows, but will not hinder anyone from trying. This is info that we already knew – why post an article?
This crap is ridiculous. You don’t hear people complaining that Motorola cell phone software won’t run on their Nokia. Why should it be any different for Apple?
I certainly see that issue just because your connections doesn’t does not mean it does not exist. However, you don’t buy a mobile phone to run generic software (tho you can and it’s called Java). You buy a phone to use messages and make calls primarily and those funtions ARE present at purchase. Some companies have standardised on a specific brand because they have a phone app that they use internally on the company
Some ppl just makes crap analogies…
No one expects Apple to support Windows. On the other hand, it would not have taken much effort for them not to have ripped out BIOS support from EFI. Had they left it in, that would likely have been all they needed to do (issues of ATI cards using EFI firmware aside).
There are bound to be other people who would consider getting one with the assurance they would have XP to fall back on (that they would likely subsequently discover they wouldn’t need to is irrelevant in their initial decision to buy).
Take Linux as an example. Not many people jump right in and delete Windows; most set up a dual boot at first. It is a security blanket. Some eventually move away from Windows entirely, and on dual boot Macs that would likely happen more often.
Without the security blanket though at least some people won’t chance it. One could argue that getting a (non dual boot) Mac is less of a risk than wiping Windows and installing Linux, since the there will still be the old Windows box to fall back on.
In many cases though, that old Windows box really is old, and a buyer will be looking to replace it. Without the security blanket, some people will be hesitant to plonk down a not-negligible amount of money that could have been used instead to get a new Windows machine.
By making the new Intellimacs OSX only, Apple is denying themselves a potential market: that of people who have heard good things and would give it a shot if only they could be sure their money won’t go to waste in the unlikely event they decide they need Windows on the new machine after all.
Apple should reach out to those folks, let them have their security blanket so they actually buy the machine. Once they buy the machine they’ll discover (assuming Apple is correct about their OS’s superiority and better ease of use) that they don’t need the security blanket, and Apple will have gained another loyal follower.
By preventing (through avoiding the minimal amount of effort necessary to support it) dual booting, Apple is missing out on potential converts. It’s almost like Apple is afraid to let customers make a direct comparison of the 2 operating systems on the same hardware, when from all I have heard and seen they really have nothing to fear.
They are a hardware company (so I hear so often) – you’d think they’d jump at a chance to sell some more and in the process prove the merits of their software. Seriously, once Windows gets infected with spyware (average case) while OSX keeps purring along, how long before the user is on OSX full time? Unfortunately for many it will never happen if they can’t get Windows on the machine in the first place, precluding their purchase in the first place.
“No one expects Apple to support Windows. On the other hand, it would not have taken much effort for them not to have ripped out BIOS support from EFI. Had they left it in, that would likely have been all they needed to do (issues of ATI cards using EFI firmware aside). ”
Despite what the article says, the version of EFI in these Macs doesn’t come with CSM. Apple didn’t rip anything out, Intel didn’t put it in. When the speculation started, I went over to Intel’s website and started reading their EFI whitepapers. Intel’s own documentation on EFI makes it clear that CSM isn’t a default option, and they don’t have a stake in extending the life of an architecture they’re trying to replace.
Even if it had been in there, XP doesn’t understand the disk structure EFI platforms use. The bridge is washed out on both sides.
“Seriously, once Windows gets infected with spyware (average case) while OSX keeps purring along, how long before the user is on OSX full time?”
The more likely scenario is Windows malware detecting and destroying both partitions, followed by Apple being deluged with support calls from users who think it’s Apple’s responsibility to fix their boxes. Apple usually doesn’t extend their hand anywhere they can’t pull it back.
Apple’s relationship with Microsoft is dual. They strongly encourage Redmond to write productivity software for Macs (note the continued absence of any serious competition from Apple since the death of Claris). On the matter of OSes, it’s war and will remain so.
Would you like Apple to make computers that dual boot Windows? Perhaps. I’d like network television to make intelligent shows regardless of the ratings, but their economic survival trumps my wishes.
Edited 2006-02-15 22:15
For all of you who are voting my comments down…thanks.
It only means I am more right than you want me to be and the only way to get back at me is to vote against my post from you tiny, horney little cubical that has not seen the light of a good showered person much less a female to touch you.
When I cash in my Apple Stock that I picked up the day Steve Came back in 1997 and dropped the iMac I will just have to laugh and laugh and laugh cause my stock seems to always have gone up and why…because the Mac is on the rise.
Bigger than DELL…..you will all see the light soon and then you can complain about how you hate using mac at work and I can roll around in my cash at home naked in bed…..oh the fun I will have.
I am David an Evil Apple Dictator and I own a Mac!
I recall reading — late last year — much of Xen and how it would integrate Intel’s Vanderpool virtualization technology (present in the Core Duos) to make running multiple operating systems at once a breeze.
On paper, this seemed to be the most promising way to get XP running on X, but what happened to the development of the project?
I really dont understand why anyone would want to run an operating system that:
–takes three minutes to boot up.
–that requires you to have an internet connection to install
–thats loaded with spyware that send info to the cia.
–Thats a whole four gigabytes, I mean for chrise sakes. I could compress eight hours of raw DV in a ISO image that’ll take up that much room.
On an apple computer;
–thats purposefully made to have a superior architecture
–that’s never really pulled the cycles to run anything windows well.
–Thats desighned to run Mac os to begin with
–thats fricken expensive as all hell
Cause if you want a fast computer with a nice mother board you could just build one from Tyan, or for size from ATX.
and at that your could save you self 300$ on XP and get an os for free that’ll run twice as fast on you new computer.
–takes three minutes to boot up.
This is false, my computer takes about 30 seconds
–that requires you to have an internet connection to install
also false, it requires no internet connection to install, it doesn’t even need it for activation
–thats loaded with spyware that send info to the cia.
whatever….
–Thats a whole four gigabytes, I mean for chrise sakes. I could compress eight hours of raw DV in a ISO image that’ll take up that much room.
Also false, my XP install, after all my apps, is less than 4Gs, I wish you would get your facts straight.
Are you still talking…..
XP when Loaded with working Applications will take forever to boot, and if you do know how to defrag then you can do that. On the Mac I really don’t have to defrag, but it gets great speed gains some of the time.
You do have to connect to the internet if you want to activate and patch it. Unless you are running the Ent. copy in which case you would be right but for the average user you are wrong. You only get to use it for a little while before you have to call in or connect.
What is the difference between less than 4GB and 4GB….not much. You just didn’t sound very smart there as they are pretty close.
All I have to say for the viruses and spyware
130K for Windows and 0 for MacOSX
You do the math.
You do have to connect to the internet if you want to activate and patch it. Unless you are running the Ent. copy in which case you would be right but for the average user you are wrong. You only get to use it for a little while before you have to call in or connect.
First off, one does not need to connect to the internet to activate Windows, one can do it over the phone. I’ve done it this way myself.
Secondly, one has no need for patches if one is not connected to the interent in the first place, because patches are either internet security patches (and thus completely useless) or external software which can be gotten through other media. And, even the security patches can be downloaded onto one machine and installed on another.
You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about, or you’re lying to make your precious Apple products look better.
“First off, one does not need to connect to the internet to activate Windows, one can do it over the phone. I’ve done it this way myself.”
I think I said that. Oh one who can’t read. Read the post again….. “You only get to use it for a little while before you have to call in or connect. ”
“You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about, or you’re lying to make your precious Apple products look better.”
Ok so you are right in a fake world….you might want to join the rest of us in the real world where we get our PCs on the internet. Of course yours is patched right? I thought so.
So If you want to live with Superman and Spidey then you can where the internet is evil and as long as Aunt May don’t get on the bad old internet then the universe will be ok, but the rest of us use the internet and now is the overwhelming reason people get a PC..
So to recap you do have to patch in the real world.
You do have to get on the internet to do that
Andy yes my 16 years in IT and my backgroud do lend to the fact that indeed I know what I am talking about.
-David
Is this not fun? I love posting when all of you are making it easy for me to write re-butt-tales.
My PC boots in 30 seconds, I have a Athlon XP 2800+ with 512M of ram, it’s got a full suite of apps, visual studio, openoffice, and all sorts of crap, so please feel free to tell me again how my system works.
and you do not have to connect to the internet to activate it, one 2 minute phone call will do, and as far as patching, I have SP2 on a cd, so I only have to connect for the later updates, and most new retail cds come with sp2 already slipstreamed in.
and as far as the differences between 4GB and 4GB, you don’t sound very smart either, as that is my full install, everything, instant messengers, development apps, firefox, openoffice, everything, I was referring to the comment about the XP install taking 4GBs, not my entire usable install. Try reading the post, eh?
Edited 2006-02-16 15:27
Where to begin, with such an asshat post as yours …
//three minutes to boot up//
Funny, my XP box boots in 68 seconds …
//requires you to have an internet connection to install//
Absolutely not true. What an idiot you are.
//loaded with spyware that send info to cia//
Hmmm … nope, no spyware on my box, thanks to using open source alternatives. Imbecile.
//Thats a whole four gigabytes//
So the f*ck what? I have a 160 GB drive, I can spare 4 GB for the OS.
Must be fun to be so delusional.
okay nvm. I just wont try.
To put it bluntly the entire windows operating system goes against my fundemental moral fiber. When problems that people like me see as problems surface, people like you demonstrate either ignorance or you just dont care.
But Windows XP did take three mintutes to boot on a computer when it first came out. and yes the spyware is there. its system wide. Lastly Four gigabytes of Os is completely retarded. Its not hardrive space. its not even clock speed. it has to do with the way that the architecture handles it. Four gigabytes is the brink of uselessness, which means no room for improvement. no bandwith to run simple functions. Its a miracle that XP spits anything out.
And…..you dont care. Because you dont want better software, you want software you were told is the only viable option.
So from now on I promise to you and all other members of this comunity to not put in my say about anything I dont like, cause someone else out there thinks your smart enough to listen. And I’ll let them take your shit. I’ll let them hold the shit.
have fun being “so delusional”
Some people here are complaining because Apple didn’t complicate their architecture to more easily allow people to run a soon to be out of date and unsupported OS on their hardware.
Just FYI, it may be unsupported but if you think they wouldn’t get any calls about it you’re deluding yourself.
For the record, dual boot systems don’t work for a business environment, if at all for most people. If I want to run Visio (as someone mentioned) I’m not going to want to reboot my computer to run it and then restart when I’m done. The VM version of VPC that MS is meant to release (Darwine, etc) is a mutch better option because, for the most part, it’s single applications that *have* to be run in a particular OS. The bulk of people’s work will be done in one OS or the other.
It’s one thing to use Virtual PC or like solution to run XP inside of OS X.
Quite another to set up a full on dual-boot system.
Some of the arguements I see here are confusing the issue.
—
And I agree, Apple is under no obligation to set up their hardware in such a way as to make it natively friendly to Windows OSes.
The fact that they’re not going to stop people from doing it isn’t the same as saying it was going to be easy.
Why would you want XP on a mac?
I switched from Windows XP Pro to a PowerBook running OS X Tiger in August ’05.
I have booted my old Windows box 3 times; each of which was to transfer old documents and email.
I have had 0 desire to go back to using Windows. Mac OS X has done everything exactly as I wanted.
My goodness you ppl are dim.
There are loads of programs that does not work on Mac OS that ppl would want to run.
So YOU are saying THEY have NO valid reasons to run them… just because you don’t. I for one is glad I’m not like you
You will never be like us….there are loads of Apple Apps I would love to run on XP but can’t but we are the last ones to complain….you were just putting it out there and we were answering you complaint.
No you don’t get it. The difference is that before you could not run Windows XP natively on a Mac (you could under emulation tho).
The new hardware changed all that and the “only” issue is EFI not supporting BIOS emulation. I’m not saying it’s Apples fault in any way HOWEVER ther are perfectly valid reason for wanting to run WinXP on Mac. There was before intel port and there still is (else why was so many using Virtual PC?)
dude… what moron would boot into windows do some work and then reboot and do some work?
get VMWare, VPC, or some other virtualizer. Then you do work, do work, do work, do work…….
You will never be like us….there are loads of Apple Apps I would love to run on XP but can’t but we are the last ones to complain….you were just putting it out there and we were answering you complaint.
Your argument would carry weight if we lived in a Mac world and Windows was the new kid on the block trying to fit in and not the other way around.
//I have had 0 desire to go back to using Windows. Mac OS X has done everything exactly as I wanted.//
Similarly, I have 0 desire to use Mac OS X. Windows XP Pro has done everything exactly as I wanted.
That’s quite a sob story. Big mean Apple won’t support their competitor’s operating system on his Mac. How could Apple do such a thing?
Screw Windows and XP! If you want to run windows, get a cheapo dell.
OF course your not going to run windows natively, MS has to much invested in Virtual Windows now. Why not just use Wine if you need a windows only app.
So the Inquirer posts yet another uninformed anti-apple article and Thoms posts it. Gee what a surprise on both counts.
Windows Vista installed on all Macs and Mac OS X discontinued or sold to Microsoft
You don’t get out much do you? There have been some very good reviews already. Some good and some bad. Perhaps if you did a bit more reading? I would suggest starting here.
http://www.anandtech.com/
Apple articles sure bring out the best sort.
You know, probably the worst aspect of Apple’s products, beyond any limitations in hardware configuration options or software availability, has to be the overzealous customers that define their lives through their computer purchases.
People want to dual-boot their Macs because they don’t want to waste money and space on two separate computers if they don’t need to. They also don’t want to pay virtualization overhead in the products that they probably want to use Windows for. There’s no technically-compelling reason for Macs to not ship with BIOS compatibility. If they did, they would only provide _more_ utility to the customer. Apple doesn’t _have_ to accomodate those people, and you know deep-down that you don’t want them to because then people might actually buy Macs and then the club would be filled with riff-raff. If they did, an entire class of potential “cracked OS X” users would disappear. Surely “those people” disturb you more than those that would, gasp, dual-boot their Mac so they can do something in their work environment or play a video game with a 0 probability of ever being ported.
This goes out primarily to as400tek, but echos/resembles many of the comments made by many other people here today.
The simple truth (and if you’ve been in IT for 14 years or whatever you are claiming now) is most places of business are locked into windows-only applications, period. Retooling everything and switching over to Mac as a platform doesn’t make economic business sense. Argue all you want, but there are a LOT of businesses out there who have dozens of legacy applications, and it would cost untold fortunes to re-write everything as a “web” application, or java, or something cross platform – not to mention swapping out all the hardware, etc.
Let’s speak of a hypothetical (but extremely common/likely scenario):
Let’s say I’m a typical everyday joe at the office, I have a portable, and there are some windows applications I have to run on this portable to get business done. They only work in windows. Now, my portable dies. I want to get a laptop, but I want a mac for these (insert various reasoning here) reasons.
Well, that leaves two options.
#1 – Buy another windows laptop, which I probably will be unhappy with due to (reasoning here).
#2 – Get a mac, just as I wanted, and either dual boot windows or have some kind of virtualization.
So, argue all you want about XP this XP that, how much better your macs are than other people’s, and whatever else – but somehow I doubt your 14 years of IT experience if you’ve never experienced windows lock-in. And hell, some people would like to enjoy a game or two now and then, without having to own a totally different computer. Forgive game developers for not developing for a platform that is a very small piece of the market at this point. When more macs are out there, I’m sure we’ll start seeing more native games. It’s just a matter of economics. If Apple continues on their current direction, churning out stylish machines with a (better – subjectively) OS, that costs roughly the same of a boring dull Dell with the same kind of setup, and offers nice little tidbits like iLife as part of the deal – macs are going to gain ground on beige box pcs. Games will come. Just give it time. Until then – windows on a mac/virtualization with windows on mac is the _only_ solution. The end.
Let’s speak of a hypothetical (but extremely common/likely scenario):
Let’s say I’m a typical everyday joe at the office, I have a portable, and there are some windows applications I have to run on this portable to get business done. They only work in windows. Now, my portable dies. I want to get a laptop, but I want a mac for these (insert various reasoning here) reasons.
Why would you want to buy a mac if your business needs require windows?? Wouldn’t you just be happier and not to mention more productive just buying a Windows portable and writting it off as a business expense.
And Of course buying a mac for personal use.
Well, that leaves two options.
#1 – Buy another windows laptop, which I probably will be unhappy with due to (reasoning here).
See above for a better solution.
#2 – Get a mac, just as I wanted, and either dual boot windows or have some kind of virtualization.
But Macs don’t run windows. So it doesn’t seem logical to want to run windows on it. That is more an excercise in fooling around with unproven technology to satisfy a geek curiousity, not a very good business decision.
So, argue all you want about XP this XP that, how much better your macs are than other people’s, and whatever else – but somehow I doubt your 14 years of IT experience if you’ve never experienced windows lock-in. And hell, some people would like to enjoy a game or two now and then, without having to own a totally different computer. Forgive game developers for not developing for a platform that is a very small piece of the market at this point. When more macs are out there, I’m sure we’ll start seeing more native games. It’s just a matter of economics. If Apple continues on their current direction, churning out stylish machines with a (better – subjectively) OS, that costs roughly the same of a boring dull Dell with the same kind of setup, and offers nice little tidbits like iLife as part of the deal – macs are going to gain ground on beige box pcs. Games will come. Just give it time. Until then – windows on a mac/virtualization with windows on mac is the _only_ solution. The end.
Why would game developers develop for MacOS X if it was easy for anyone on a mac to dual boot and run Windows???
I can hope that ferrari makes a $35000 car… sigh we can all dream.
“Why would you want to buy a mac if your business needs require windows?? Wouldn’t you just be happier and not to mention more productive just buying a Windows portable and writting it off as a business expense. And Of course buying a mac for personal use. ”
Most people don’t work at places that issue laptops. You have to use your personal machine if you *want* to have a laptop for business operations. I don’t know many people who would/could go buy *two* laptops for this purpose. You’d have to do a lot of tax trickery to write off something you bought as a business expense on a personal account when it was non-necessary for operations, and not even your own business. I’ll let the tax lawyers handle that (they normally pop out of the framework around 80-someodd posts
)
Let’s say you do have mega bucks to go pick up two laptops. Would you really want to have to mess around with the hassel? It’s a lot easier for me to whip out my mac and do my remote X11 stuff, all my development/testing, run MS Office, and in VPC mess with the basic CAD functionality I need, RIGHT NOW. If I had an intel mac with virtualization that was near-native, I’d be in heaven. I don’t want to have to lug around two laptops, or worse yet, have to go home every time I needed to do something different. I’d HATE to try international travel with that kind of setup!
“But Macs don’t run windows. So it doesn’t seem logical to want to run windows on it. That is more an excercise in fooling around with unproven technology to satisfy a geek curiousity, not a very good business decision.”
Last I heard, MS was going to continue VPC, which should run things at near-native speed. That’s not unproven technology, it’s just really slow running on G* hardware, because of the translations occuring. On Intel-based macs, it should run almost native speed.
“Why would game developers develop for MacOS X if it was easy for anyone on a mac to dual boot and run Windows??? ”
Because the developers themselves own macs? Because they realize most people won’t go out and buy a copy of windows for their mac just to play games (it’s expensive) unless they are really dedicated? Because they realize the ones who pirate copies of windows probably won’t be *buying* their games?
“I can hope that ferrari makes a $35000 car… sigh we can all dream.”
I don’t see the correlation between that statement and anything above. Please enlighten me. Not to mention, a 35,000 Ferrari probably wouldn’t be hand-built, would have a run of the mill generic engine, and quality would likely be way lower than a 15,000$ Kia, Honda, Toyota, Chevy, you name it. I suppose if that’s your dream, go for it.
Or according to your own advice, buy two Ferraris! One in blue, one in red. Sure, you like the blue one, but Ferraris are traditionally red, and the Ferrari club in your area REQUIRES red Ferraris. If there was an option to get some kind of new-fangled electronic “paint” that could shift colors at the touch of a button, you’re telling me it would be a bad idea? Macs + Windows (under virtualization) == good.
Most people don’t work at places that issue laptops. You have to use your personal machine if you *want* to have a laptop for business operations. I don’t know many people who would/could go buy *two* laptops for this purpose. You’d have to do a lot of tax trickery to write off something you bought as a business expense on a personal account when it was non-necessary for operations, and not even your own business. I’ll let the tax lawyers handle that (they normally pop out of the framework around 80-someodd posts
)
Your argument is self contradicitng. If the business won’t offer you a laptop then you technically don’t need it for getting your work done. So a mac, even if it doesn’t run windows, should work well and it is what you want.
Let’s say you do have mega bucks to go pick up two laptops. Would you really want to have to mess around with the hassel? It’s a lot easier for me to whip out my mac and do my remote X11 stuff, all my development/testing, run MS Office, and in VPC mess with the basic CAD functionality I need, RIGHT NOW. If I had an intel mac with virtualization that was near-native, I’d be in heaven. I don’t want to have to lug around two laptops, or worse yet, have to go home every time I needed to do something different. I’d HATE to try international travel with that kind of setup!
I fail to see where this is a real reason rather than a “it would be great if” convenience RFE. There are lot of conveniences we could have but don’t, deal with it. Like the fridge magnet goes” A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine”. BooHoo if you need two different environments and an elegant solution does not exist learn to live with it or improve it. Cribbing about it won’t solve anything. Apple is not in the business of pleasing everyone on the planet and every little convenience feature every person wants.
If Apple were to take extra steps to allow XP to run they would be out of business soon and then you wouldn’t have a problem!!!
Because the developers themselves own macs? Because they realize most people won’t go out and buy a copy of windows for their mac just to play games (it’s expensive) unless they are really dedicated? Because they realize the ones who pirate copies of windows probably won’t be *buying* their games?
Hunh? Most game developers own macs??? Why aren’t there more games for the Mac than windows? What you said doesn’t make any sense.
I don’t see the correlation between that statement and anything above. Please enlighten me. Not to mention, a 35,000 Ferrari probably wouldn’t be hand-built, would have a run of the mill generic engine, and quality would likely be way lower than a 15,000$ Kia, Honda, Toyota, Chevy, you name it. I suppose if that’s your dream, go for it.
I meant that analogy to tell you than you can wish all you want but companies don’t do business on your wishes. A ferrari is a driving experience. What is a “run of the mill generic engine”? Ferrari’s use Internal combustion engines like every other automobile on the planet. There are no “engine manufacturing” companies in the automobile world akin to intel in the computer world.
Or according to your own advice, buy two Ferraris! One in blue, one in red. Sure, you like the blue one, but Ferraris are traditionally red, and the Ferrari club in your area REQUIRES red Ferraris. If there was an option to get some kind of new-fangled electronic “paint” that could shift colors at the touch of a button, you’re telling me it would be a bad idea? Macs + Windows (under virtualization) == good.
What point are you trying to make here? Ferrari’s don’t cost $35000 so i can’t buy one. So I guess I am SOL but you don’t see me on the ferrari boards bitching about it. Get the point. My advice was to buy what ever gets the job done.
Edited 2006-02-16 05:15
Your argument is self contradicitng. If the business won’t offer you a laptop then you technically don’t need it for getting your work done. So a mac, even if it doesn’t run windows, should work well and it is what you want. ”
If you’d take a few minutes to calm down and stop attacking me, maybe you’d realize you’re taking my words in a negative manner, when they are not meant to be. I’m not suggesting Apple do anything *special* to please people who want to run windows alongside osx. MS has already said they are moving forward with VPC, and based on the architecture, it will run at near-native speeds. I don’t need Apple to do anything. On that note, you’re right, I technically don’t need it. Ever heard of such a thing as convienence? Making your work more efficient? We humans have one thing that really set us apart from a lot of the animal world. We learned to use tools, make tools. Advanced tools. Tools exist to make our life easier. You are suggesting we stick with the status quo and deal with the inconvience. That’s silly. I’m not asking Apple to do anything *special* for me, I’m simply voicing my support that windows on a mac *is* helpful. There is nothing contradictory in that.
“I fail to see where this is a real reason rather than a “it would be great if” convenience RFE. There are lot of conveniences we could have but don’t, deal with it. Like the fridge magnet goes” A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine”. BooHoo if you need two different environments and an elegant solution does not exist learn to live with it or improve it. Cribbing about it won’t solve anything. Apple is not in the business of pleasing everyone on the planet and every little convenience feature every person wants. ”
Deal with it? Why should I, when I can have the convience I want? BooHoo? There is an elegant solution, it does exist (or rather will). “Cribbing” on things is exactly how things get solved. You think Apple would have changed anything if nobody ever voiced a suggestion/comment/complaint/request? Why would they – if everybody was satisfied with status quo as you seem to suggest we should be – then everybody would still be feeding punchcards into mainframes. Why waste money doing things nobody wants? The thing is – people do want things, to make their life easier – more convienent. I don’t know why you’re so opposed to that. Maybe you had some bad experiences and feel you need to take it out on everybody else because you don’t have the “convience” you want in your life? My life is quite convienent – but whenever I don’t like how something works, I do “Crib”, and generally – I end up getting what I want. Now sometimes that “cribbing” is writing out a million dollar check to X vendor, but money is the motivator. You crib your desires, requests, complaints, and you vote with your wallet. That’s how capitalism works. Especially in a free/open market. People suggest/ask for things, manufacturers/designers/etc DO listen (contrary to your apparent beliefs) and do market research. They determine which functionality to impliment based on what the estimated returns will be. If it makes financial sense, they will impliment it. If you’d ever have ran a business, you’d know this – it’s fundamental business planning/economics. I own a service based business, we have no *true* products, only services. People request things for their “convienence”, they are 99% never necessary. If my team sees a market opportunity for this functionality/change, we commit to it and roll it out.
LOTS of people want windows on their mac, look at all these posts here. Maybe you don’t, maybe you don’t agree, but guess what – MS already knew this/sees this, and guess what else – VPC for intel-based macs is coming. Seems I’m not the only one with the view that it makes sense. You can continue to live in stasis if you like, but I prefer making my life easier, more convienent. Nobody is telling you that you have to have windows on your mac, so quit trying to shove your opinions down my throat. I personally don’t care what you think of windows on mac. I simply voiced my agreement that it would be nice to see windows on mac. You’re in no position to tell me I can’t have it because Apple doesn’t care about me. They care about my money. MS cares about my money, and thus – I will have windows on my mac. Maybe not today, not tomorrow, but I will. Until then I’m perfectly happy running VPC on my G4s and G5s. Windows on a mac.
“If Apple were to take extra steps to allow XP to run they would be out of business soon and then you wouldn’t have a problem!!! ”
What? I didn’t even suggest Apple should have allowed XP to run natively. Not only that, but I really do fail to see how allowing XP to run on a mac would cause them to go out of business. Do you want to present me with your background/facts for making this comment?
“Hunh? Most game developers own macs??? Why aren’t there more games for the Mac than windows? What you said doesn’t make any sense. ”
You asked why would game developers write games for mac natively. I told you some possible reasons why. I never said most developers own macs. Look at my words. Really, you need to relax, you are taking everything defensively and making aggressive comments. This isn’t high school.
“I meant that analogy to tell you than you can wish all you want but comoanies don’t do business on your wishes. A ferrari is a driving experience. What is a “run of the mill generic engine”? Ferrari’s use Internal combustion engines live every other automobile on the planet. There are no “engine manufacturing” companies like intel in the computer world.”
Companies DO business based on my (a collective us – all people in the market) wishes. Again, this is basic business. Capitalism, free market economy, etc. You should go take a course before you make ignorant comments.
You sound like a BMW commerical. Driving a Ferrari is interesting, absolutely no doubt, I’ve driven them on the track and in the street. Maybe you don’t realize it, but Ferrari’s don’t have the same kind of engine your Civic might. They generally run much higher RPMs, they are engineered to extremely low tolerances, and put out a large amount of power per size unit. I won’t even get into compression and other technical aspects, but please feel free to research it on your own. I also hate to break it to you, but most of the major auto manufacturers are “engine manufacturing companies”. You ever heard of Lotus? They make this really neat little car called the Elise. Did you know the US model uses a Toyota engine? They were going to use a Honda, but Toyota worked out better for them economically and politically (Honda didn’t want to have the Elise competing against it’s own S2000). This is not much different than AMD/Intel. They make chipsets too (cars in this analogy). For instance, that Tyan motherboard you’ve been drooling over has an Intel model and an AMD model. Consider Intel and AMD engine manufacturers, as well as car manufacturers. They do both. So do car makers.
– Continued in next post –
“What point are you trying to make here? Ferrari’s don’t cost $35000 so i can’t buy one. So I guess I am SOL but you don’t see me on the ferrari boards bitching about it. Get the point.”
If everybody wanted a 35,000$ Ferrari, and nobody would pay 500,000$ for the luxury, you don’t think Ferrari would be banging out 35,000$ cars right now? They would have no choice. Stop doing business, or sell 35,000$ cars. Sure, they wouldn’t be the same thing, but it’s that or go bankrupt in this example you make.
I guess you’d call SGI Ferrari in the computer world. They’re one of the last extremely pricey workstation producing companies around. Everybody else figured it out, they have the “35000$ cars.” SGI made bad business decisions, totally missed the market opportunity by trying to stay in production of only highly expensive workstations, and the other companies did what consumers wanted/desired. Look who’s going bankrupt and who’s doing fine.
Ferrari is an interesting example, people still desire the exclusivity, and are still willing to pay a million dollars for a car. So they keep providing them. But when it makes economic sense based on people’s desires to change, they will. It’s the only way to keep a company running.
The point is, enough people want windows on the new macs, somebody will get it working. Nobody is demanding Apple does it (at least, I’m not – I can’t speak for others.) I just know market economy, and I know it will happen. You can sit there and tell me how flawed I am for wanting such a feature, and you can argue that I shouldn’t have any convience in my life and I should just deal with it – but when I get what I want, as well as what seems like the majority, you can sit there living in your status quo fashion, but I’m going to sit there smiling, running my windows applications on my shiny new intel mac. You’ve gotten too aggressive, and borderline offensive for me, and this is rapidly going off topic. This will be my last post – take it as you may.
Cheers,
David
The point is, enough people want windows on the new macs, somebody will get it working. Nobody is demanding Apple does it (at least, I’m not – I can’t speak for others.) I just know market economy, and I know it will happen.
Sure. If you believe that if enough people want it they will make it. All I am saying is it makes no sense for Apple to make it so. I would like to dual boot my mac with multiple OSes too. But would I be pissed if I couldn’t, no.
You can sit there and tell me how flawed I am for wanting such a feature, and you can argue that I shouldn’t have any convience in my life and I should just deal with it – but when I get what I want, as well as what seems like the majority, you can sit there living in your status quo fashion, but I’m going to sit there smiling, running my windows applications on my shiny new intel mac. You’ve gotten too aggressive, and borderline offensive for me, and this is rapidly going off topic. This will be my last post – take it as you may.
All i was saying is we can all hope for our life to become more convinient. Sure I’d like a cell phone with a Sony ericssion user interface, nokia reception and Motorola Razr ID. But will I get it, probably not.
Dicussing how much demand there is for windows on Mac is pointless. It won’t change anything. Also the article is about how “irresponsible Apple” is being. I am just pointing out why Apple has not reason to make supporting Xp easy.
May be I was a bit to harsh. Please accept my appologies.
I think we’re actually on the same boat in terms of our thoughts. I’m just a little more optimistic about the likelyhood of it happening.
As to the cellphone thing – you’re probably correct, I doubt highly that will ever happen. But that doesn’t have the kind of demand that people are voicing (and it’s pretty apparent to see why) for windows on mac (be it dual boot or virtualization). I think it’s a lot more likely for the win+mac to happen than the SE/Nokia/Moto frankenstein (btw, that would be pretty cool, except I’d go for the Samsung interface instead
)
Yea, the article is pretty stupid, you’re right. My original post was more aimed at general conversation than a direct response to the (obviously) anti-apple article. My apologies as well for getting defensive.
But that doesn’t have the kind of demand that people are voicing (and it’s pretty apparent to see why) for windows on mac (be it dual boot or virtualization). I think it’s a lot more likely for the win+mac to happen than the SE/Nokia/Moto frankenstein (btw, that would be pretty cool, except I’d go for the Samsung interface instead
)
I would much prefer a virtualization technology that did not depend on VPC. Hope fully apple will use vanderpool to allow for true virtualization where MacOS X and windows coexist side by side and execute on hardware basically one per core. However, on a portable that would cause the disk to be the bottleneck and kill the battery life.
That would be a much better solution than dual booting.
OK you wanted to voice your opinion about how having one platform is more convenient than many. Your opinion is taken.
You sound like a BMW commerical. Driving a Ferrari is interesting, absolutely no doubt, I’ve driven them on the track and in the street. Maybe you don’t realize it, but Ferrari’s don’t have the same kind of engine your Civic might. They generally run much higher RPMs, they are engineered to extremely low tolerances, and put out a large amount of power per size unit. I won’t even get into compression and other technical aspects, but please feel free to research it on your own. I also hate to break it to you, but most of the major auto manufacturers are “engine manufacturing companies”.
Yes ferrari engines are designed for performance but are nothing special that you wouldn’t find in say an m3 or a Merceded SLR. Now the bugatti veyron has a spectacular engine. However one of the most effcient engine actually is in the S2000, a Honda.
You ever heard of Lotus? They make this really neat little car called the Elise. Did you know the US model uses a Toyota engine? They were going to use a Honda, but Toyota worked out better for them economically and politically (Honda didn’t want to have the Elise competing against it’s own S2000).
Yes that’s because the elise engine wouldn’t have met the US emission standards. Toyota doesn’t make engines for 90% or the cars out there. An Apple with an Intel is like an elise, no. You wouldn’t take the elise for servicing to a toyota dealership.
This is not much different than AMD/Intel. They make chipsets too (cars in this analogy). For instance, that Tyan motherboard you’ve been drooling over has an Intel model and an AMD model. Consider Intel and AMD engine manufacturers, as well as car manufacturers. They do both. So do car makers.
It is the automobile industry doesn’t work that way. Amd and Intel own more than 95% or the computer chips market. No one/two Auto manufacturer owns the engine market like that. So there are no “generic engines”. There are engines designed for specific purposes. The civic engine is designed for gas mileage and reliability with low maintainence requirements. The ferrari engine is designed for performance at all costs.
The point is not so much re-tooling your comapny as much as it is which OS is better suited for you and as I see it being where I am and where I have been….MacOSX just makes better sense, not that anyone or any company is going to move today to MacOSX, but there has been a change in the universe with the chip now being the same that both of the 2 OS’s run on….things are going to get interesting that is all.
Yes I am Pro-Mac. Yes I am a geek and no I do not like Windows but I see why it fit at the time. The times are about to change.
OS X is better than XP, microsoft can only copy that Mac OS and they are only good at doing that. IT’s so sad that Microsoft’s engineers resort to copying Apple’s OS X. They are paid so well and do so little as in re-inventing or inventing new and easier ways of windowing.
Hey I don’t understand why people would bash those who want to run XP on Macs. I currently have THREE personal use computers at the house. One Mac desktop, one XP Desktop and one XP Laptop for my wife. I am a software developer that mainly develops solutions for MS Access but some Windows apps. But I would rather use a Mac for personal use. ow the idiot who said buy two comps obviously doesn’t hae this kind of setup. It totally blows to have to get up and move from one computer to another in the middle of work. Plus I do webdesign in my spare time and I have to check out IE, Firefox and Opera for windows, then I have to use Safari, Firefox, IE, Camino, and Opera for Mac. Why is it absrd that I want to have just one computer to do these things on? I would be able to afford a much niver rig is I didn’t have to split my cash up across three PC’s
Agreed, I have four, 2 macs and 1 pcs and one laptop running XP. If you really want to run OS’s at the native speeds, just buy another computer. That said I like my Macs so much better than any of the other’s I have, dell and hp.
I checked my mac for spyware yesterday……………0 My windows machines aways have a collection of them.
Well with 88 posts, I doubt this will make it
No one expects Apple to support Windows XP. Its not even about if its worth it to boot windows XP. I think MamiyaOtaru said it best. It would have taken them minimal effort to leave in BIOS support and that would have kept people happy.
When Microsoft released the XBOX…a closed integrated solution…they didn’t bother putting extra stuff in or taking extra stuff out to prevent Linux from booting did they?
People in the PC world are just too used to having friendly hardware
Just a note before someone points it out. In later releases of the Xbox MS has put in some protection against running Linux…but then I’m not saying MS is a saint
.
Edited 2006-02-16 04:55
I think the point here is that people on the *supposedly* anti-boot-xp camp aren’t saying that macs shouldn’t boot XP, they’re saying that people shouldn’t attack Apple because they didn’t pay Intel to include the functionality in the chipset.
Personally (and it’s just my opinion), I don’t want to boot XP on my mac, I’d much prefer that the virtualization circuitry in the CPU be utilized for this purpose so that I can have a seamless experience and not suffer down time and the administrative and configuration overhead that comes with running a dual boot system. Now the original “red box” (http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/boxes.shtml) concept would have been perfect, basically Darwine but Apple designed and supported. That’s not available either, I found another (and various) solution(s) to this problem that don’t work as well (obviously) but get done what I need to do.
As for the argument that people should be able to dual boot for business reasons, I find that quite unrealistic. In most companies (including mine), people are permitted to buy whatever they want for their home laptops. They’re not permitted to just go ahead and buy whatever and bring it to work. In the case of people who run macs at home, they’re told clearly what’s supported and what’s not. I’m a mac user and so’s the other IT guy, work is 100% PC. It makes business sense to buy the thing that gets the job done, not the thing that the user wants. Now, having a computer that the user wants can increase productivity, sure, but if they cannot do their job because something isn’t supported then that’s not an option. Obviously having the user’s wants coinciding with the business needs is optimal but it’s just not an option.
What people *seem* to be saying is that they want to run OSX but can’t because their work proprietary applications aren’t supported. Also, they want to be able to run XP only games. Some people at least also seem to be angry at Apple because the think Apple should have made an effort to support this desire. I think that’s totally illogical.
Even though I’d prefer a more integrated solution, I wouldn’t mind a dual boot system as an interim measure but it just isn’t an option right now. Once it gets hacked together I’m sure there’ll be some happy people around but for most people it’s not an optimal configuration despite the characterization that some people seem to be making.
I’m not against dual boot, I just think it’s illogical to disparage Apple because they didn’t include functionality that had absolutely no use to their business. Try to remember that Apple makes a fair amount of money from their software business and having people happily running XP isn’t really a good thing for them. Sure, it’s lock in etc but they’re not the first to use the business model effectively and they won’t be the last. Would most people still use OSX? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t want to take the risk either. I personally think that OSX is better than XP but who’s to say what users would do if it was just a matter of rebooting the machine. And no doubt what so ever, Apple would be fielding numerous XP support calls and the customer confusion would be bad for them too.
Whole beauty of Apple is that it’s solid OS on solid Hardware while Windows is Generic OS for Generic hardware.
Macs are as great as they are just because Mac OSX is built around certain hardware and not all generic stuff that excists
With Macs moving to Intel and Windows Vista already having all the features of Mac and then some and then macs having very little software to begin with, why bother?
I haven’t needed to use a Mac for ages and while Pear PC was neat just to see it work, it’s pretty useless not because of the emulation but more because why would you want to do that?
Final Cut Pro is the only app that is worth it on the mac platform, everything else doesn’t matter. So why would you pay for so much more for something that only has one good app?
I mean when apple users said that they have a superior system because they have the power PC, what are those users going to say now that they are using their OS on a PC? So much for that superior factor. Windows Vista for the win.
>Whole beauty of Apple is that it’s solid OS on solid >Hardware while Windows is Generic OS for Generic >hardware.
>Macs are as great as they are just because Mac OSX
>is built around certain hardware and not all generic >stuff that excists
You mean “exists”?
Windows Vista is Solid and Windows Hardware is also mostly solid.
Nforce is great and so is Nvidia video cards and ATI video cards and AMD makes great processors, Creative makes XFI all pretty much “Solid”
Macs are great if you like communism with your computer system. You can have the computer any way you like as long as it’s our way.
Choice is a wonderfull thing.
“Macs are great if you like communism with your computer system. You can have the computer any way you like as long as it’s our way. ”
What the hell are you doing to your computer that you need a thousand options when you order it?
Super Drive or Just a CDRW+DVD
More RAM? YES
3 Video Cards? Sure
Wireless?
What kind of options did you need? Blue Neon Light or Green?
You still head to the used car lot and complain that the $1000 Honda Civic you want is not as tricked out as you would like too….the color is wrong and the spark plug wire are the wrong color?
Apple users are more like BMW or Audi Owners. We don’t want to customize the car to death. We want a nice reliable, face good feeling car that I can purchase today and sell in a few years without doing much to it.
You can beat and bang your PC into some crazy looking hot rod but when you get done you will have spent as much if not more then I will for the same mac and will be no better for it.
I know because I used to do it all the time.