Microsoft has responded positively to Apple’s Boot Camp, stating: “Windows is a great operating system. We’re pleased that Apple customers are excited about running it, and that Apple is responding to meet the demand.” Apple, in the meantime, stated that Apple will never sell Macs with Windows pre-installed, while VoodooPC’s CTO wonders what Boot Camp’s implications might be. And on a related note, VMWare’s CEO confirmed that they are working on a version for Mac OS X on Intel. Update: According to AppleInsider, Apple will rename its iBook line to MacBook, and launch them near the end of this month. The MacBook will sport Core-Duo processors, 13″ widescreen, built-in iSight, and Front Row/remote.
What people really want is to run OSX on regular PCs so they don’t have to run Windows anymore.
I have never met a single Mac user that has any interest whatsoever in running Windows. In fact, they are willing to spend the big buck to NOT run Windows.
If any Mac users are gonna run Windows, I think it would be for games.
Also, this will help people “switch”, people feel more comfortable if they can slowly switch from the one OS to the other… This allows people to do just that.
“What people really want is to run OSX on regular PCs so they don’t have to run Windows anymore.
I have never met a single Mac user that has any interest whatsoever in running Windows. In fact, they are willing to spend the big buck to NOT run Windows.”
The sales of VirtualPC say otherwise.
The sales of VirtualPC say otherwise.
I think the original poster was making a subtle point. Mac users don’t want to run Windows, they do however want to run Windows applications / games. if they had a way to run those games / applications without installing Windows, they would.
I think the original poster was making a subtle point. Mac users don’t want to run Windows, they do however want to run Windows applications / games. if they had a way to run those games / applications without installing Windows, they would.
I think the same thing could be said about us Windows users
Windows users don’t want to run Windows, we do however want to run Windows applications / games. if we had a way to run those games / applications without installing Windows, we would.
I think the decision between buying a Mac and/ur using Linux with Wine/Crossover totally depends on how often you would have to boot into Windows/Virtual PC to get done what you want/need done. If the answer is ‘not often’, then you’re all set. If the answer is ‘all the time’, then you’re kind of stuck. I’ve got about 4 Windows-only apps that I use daily (2 of which were written by me for very specialized tasks, so I’d have to rewrite the damn things for another platform), so the switch isn’t really practical.
Edited 2006-04-08 20:28
That’s an interesting statement, and I don’t doubt it’s true for several Windows users; however, I believe that certain people from both sides want to be able to run the other natively on their hardware.
Lets consider people who don’t have enough money to buy more than one computer, then there’s the people who got their computer from their parents and who cannot yet afford to get another computer as long as the price is over a few hundred dollars. These people are stuck with what they have, whether it’s a Mac to begin with or any other computer. I fall in that group, I want to be able to run OS X if not for any other reason than to try it out as a development platform, but I have nothing but x86 hardware (largely in part due to price, this all predates the Mac Mini and the core-solo model still seems overpriced, although tempting). Mac users are pretty lucky now to have a system capable of running Windows, Linux and OS X, many of us owning computers Jobs hasn’t deemed worthy of running his OS are stuck never knowing the sight of OS X booting on our hardware.
Maybe it’s just one of those cases of the grass seeming greener on the other side, but I’ll never know until I’ve been there and that is a very tempting thought.
Yes, but there are plenty of Windows users (myself included) who would like to run OSX. I run Windows because I have to (.Net developer). I would run OSX because I want to. Choice is good…and if I can do it all on one machine, even better.
Then become a Cocoa and J2EE Developer and run it on OS X.
You’re obviously clueless, so I’ll clue you in. Almost all of the J2EE developers in corporate IT use Windows to write their apps. Cocoa doesn’t even exist in corp IT.
Your assumption is flawed for several reasons:
1) VirtualPC doesn’t run all Windows apps (i.e. games)
2) VirtualPC is slow
3) If you are going to buy an expensive Mac, a Windows OS, and VirtualPC just to run Windows, then why not save a boat load of money and just buy a PC?
Personally, I hate using virtual machines (with the acception of Xen) so I can’t see why anybody would use one, but I guess they have reasons. I just don’t think a burning desire to run Windows is one of them.
I love how it starts out: “Windows is a great operating system.” Though I suppose it makes sense, Microsoft would have lost the battle if they faced the facts…
Well when something currently DOMINATES THE DESKTOP MARKET I believe they have the right to say Windows is whatever they want. If it were nearly as bad as you make it out to be, then it wouldn’t be so sucessful.
Just because it doesn’t work EXACTLY how you want it doesn’t mean the entire world has to sit back and digest your opinion, get a grip.
WOAH!!! Chill out!
The only comment I was making was that I found it funny how MS was complementing themselves.
The second part of my commment was only to say that you are defeated once you admit defeat.
You missed a great point here, dominating the desktop market does not make you the best. Do yuo measure quality in base of quantity? weird. Something to think of.
I think it means that at one point you had the best product. It doesn’t neccesarily mean you still do though.
Something has to be going right when you dominate the market. I don’t see how this is quantity.. they can throw all the copies they want around but unless they can get their product to sell it’s irrelevant. Stop trying to make a point when in reality you’re just throwing words around to sound like you have something even close to intelligent.
Something has to be going right when you dominate the market.
Well AOL must be a “Great ISP” then because it has the most market share.
Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s any good.
Of course it does, else people would drop it.
Of course it does, else people would drop it.
Only if people are educated and aware enough to make an informed decision. Most people who use AOL don’t know that there’s a better way to access the internet. Most people who use IE don’t know that there’s a better web browser. Most people who use Windows don’t know that there’s a better OS. Microsoft and AOL succeed because their customers are ignorant of the alternatives, are not informed, and have very, very low expectations.
You had me up until “better OS”. That one is way way too subjective, while the others are much less.
Nice try though.
Domination doesn’t mean that something is the best. For example, OSX vs. Windows, Betamax vs. VHS, AMD vs. Intel, a lump of poo vs. Packard Bell computers, and so on.
Soon Macs will be the first personal computers ever to run all the major surviving desktop operating systems. Gotta love that.
Want to really be able to choose what OS you run ? Buy a Mac 🙂
Well, I might remind you that Apple is the one barring OSX from running on non-Apple machines (talk about extreme bundling). It is not GNU/Linux, *BSD nor Windows that is artificially picky about what kind of x86 box to run on.
If you want real choice go with an OS that doesn’t artificially prescribe a hardware brand. E.g. Pick GNU/Linux, Windows, Open/Net/FreeBSD, Haiku etc.
What do you think about this (speculative) long-term, 5 year plan:
Step 1: Now. Boot camp allows windows to boot on Macs
Step 2: Mac OS 10.5 Previewed August, released December. Virtualisation allows users to switch between the two operating systems without rebooting.
Step 3: In 1 year. Release of Yellow Box allows Windows developers to write Objective C code and write one application that runs on Windows and Mac OS.
Step 4: In 2 years. Apple has secretly been working on Wine for the past 2 years and announce that you can run Windows apps on Mac OS without a copy of XP/Vista.
Step 5: In 3 years. Apple licences OS X 10.6 to general PC makers. It runs Mac apps and Windows apps simultaneously, in the same way that current OS9 apps and OS X apps can run together.
Step 6: Microsoft can’t cancel Office for Mac because theu have a 5 year agreement with Apple.
Step 7: 4 years from now. Apple releases it’s Office suite.
—
Completely speculative, guesswork, but fun. Apple certainly has a long-term undercover strategy. Just look how they were developing a x86 version of OS X for 5 years and were just waiting for the right time to switch over and release it. I think the ultimate target of Apple is to topple Microsoft and I definately think that they will license their OS in a few years from now.
Browser: Mozilla/4.51 (compatible; Opera 3.62; EPOC; 640×480)
Yeah that would be something like Apple to do. They seem to always have something facinating and cool up their sleeve that really works.
It will be very interesting to see how this will play out, because after having a iPod their is a whole new generation that has only known a iPod with a Apple logo on it.
Fun times!
another option is that people run either a native or the windows version of openoffice
still, most likely apple will base the file format for their own office suite on th openoffice formats…
Step 6: Microsoft can’t cancel Office for Mac because theu have a 5 year agreement with Apple.
Just because Microsoft have an agreement to develop Office for Mac for 5 years doesn’t mean they have to release anything in that time. They can simply drag their feet for years if they want to. Look at Vista. Back in 2001, they knew they didn’t have anything coming down the pipeline for the next few years, so what did they do to protect their revenue stream? They convinced large companies (mine included) to sign Enterprise Agreements, which were annual subscriptions which grant you the right to upgrade to the latest versions as soon as they are released.
The IT guys in my company thought, “wow what a great deal, let’s do that it’ll save so much money.” What have we gotten for the MILLIONS that we pay to Microsoft annually since we signed up for the EA in 2002? ONE new version of Office. That’s it. No new versions of Windows or anything else we use. Yet we pay subscription money each and every year that equals far, far more than we would pay each year if we simply bought Windows and Office licenses with each new PC we leased. What a scam. Brillian on Microsoft’s part, they get paid millions a year from my compay for NOTHING, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they become the target of some lawsuits from angry Fortune 500 customers in the near future.
Sounds realistic.
An apple office suite would be cool.
Openoffice is very nice for the price, but it essentially copies ms office. Off the top of my head i can think of better designs, visualize them. From this point of view it seems relativly easy to make a good office suite, but i know the amount of code involved is enourmous. I blame this on programming languages and API, but it would probably still take a ton even with insanely good not-yet-invented languages and an intuitive API.
LOP would probably work very well for office suites, but it adds the overhead of custom language extension. Under a good LOP framework this would probably not be much. The real problem is you can’t change it too much once you get underway.
Ahwell, anyway, I can imagine an apple office suite being full featured with simplistic UI.
I don’t think “monopoly” is a word that can really be used with Apple right now, but Mr. Sood brings up an interesting point.
Now Apple computers can run Windows, which puts them in competition with the Dells, HPs and VoodooPCs (sort of: Apple won’t come with XP, just the possibility to insall it). But Apples also run OSX, and are the only ones that can*. Is it fair to the other PC makers that only Apple can offer the possibility to dual boot with OSX and XP?
Their OS, and their exclusive ability to dual boot with it is an advantage. Is it an unfair one? Lots of people are considering switching to Apple hardware now that they can have their XP safety net running on it.
I guess it all underscores the idea that Apple is a hardware company. When I thought of them increasing marketshare, I used to think of it pretty much as being at the expense of Microsoft (still would be I’m sure, but with dual booting XP it would be less so). Instead it looks to be more at the expense of other computer hardware makers.
____________
* barring hacks of questionable legality and convenience of course
“I don’t think “monopoly” is a word that can really be used with Apple right now, but Mr. Sood brings up an interesting point. ”
I think that’s the key point: Apple often act in a manner which would be typical of Microsoft however, they are not breaking the law as they are not a monopoly.
It would be cute if Apple did what Be did several years ago and “offered” dell to install OSX as long as they guarantee dual boot. Even if Dell wanted to install OSX Microsoft would never allow it! Realize that when Apple starts to take real market share Dell and other Wintel only vendors will be squirming like crazy. Restriction of dual-booting has always been the REAL unspoken linchpin of Microsoft’s monopoly. Be Got 100 million out of them in order to keep that issue out of court and away from the DOJ. If Apple’s actions start Squeezing the “Dells” of the world it should be very interesting. If Apple would just acknoladge the base of Linux and cooperate with iTunes and such then the squeeze would really be on!
Cringely predicted on Thursday MS’s response to this. So, this is quick service for you!
It’s a pretty uniqely balanced situation: both companies seem to think that their OS is better than the other guy’s. That is, the user will boot to one or the other, and then eventually choose theirs. Interesting.
Apart the Windows vs Mac OS X dispute, these are my wishes for Macbook:
1) Look as beautiful as MacBook Pro;
2) Cost as much as iBooks did.
And I would immediatly buy one.
I wonder too whether Apple will offer their laptops with two trackpad buttons. They now supply multi-button mice with their desktops. Using a one button mouse is bearable on Mac OS X. It’d probably be really annoying on Windows.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060406.html
Not caring nor concerned, about the technical specs nor the finanacial ramnifications of this, I would like Apple to allow OS X on generic PC’s. The NIX community can support the drivers required.
OS X should be sold for generic PC’s, plain and simple.
It’s a good UNIX OS that would boost Apple’s presence.
See People actually want to run OS X compared to when Apple tried to license the MacOS before. There is a big difference between when Apple just about went under with OS licensing (pre-Steve), compared to OS X, which is beautifully designed (Aqua).
OS X needs to start out on the shelf with a designed “Only for use with Intel Macs” logo, while still allowing any PC install. Geeks will know, but end users won’t and there will be end user support. Then the Mac PC/*NIX community should kick in and start developing drivers for it, eventually increasing usage soo much that OEM/hardware manufacturers also see the potential and start provide drivers (like has been done in the Linux community), then once in place Apple can choose whether they wish to support generic PC’s and Intel Macs.
This would be suicide. Apple prides itself on the phrase, “It just works”. Doing something like you propose would take away a huge cornerstone of the Apple mantra. Suddenly the OS that is pretty rock solid is unstable thanks to third party drivers. The experience of using OS X goes into the toilet, and I can guarantee that few will say, “Well it’s unsupported so what do you expect.” They’ll think it’s crap and never look at Apple again.
Apple will *never* release a version of OS X for standard PC’s. There are too many hardware variances to deal with.
Not caring nor concerned, about the technical specs nor the finanacial ramnifications of this
Buh-bye.
One thing I haven’t seen anyone post on, how is one going to Partition the hard drive to put Windows XP on it. Does Partition Magic have the ability to resize HFS+, or any other partitioning tool? Most common people (but then again, common people don’t buy macs in the first place) are not even going to know that it needs to be partitioned.
Windows XP will also overwrite the MBR and totally take over the computer as well.
Sure it’s possible to dual-boot them, if the firmware is there to let WinXP to install. But I don’t think you can use Grub to do it. I’m pretty sure Apple doesn’t have a bootloader either.
Leech
You don’t think apple hasn’t already dealt with all of those? The whole point behind bootcamp is to be able to run windows, so it’s going to run windows. If you’d actually looked at the boot camp page (http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/), you would’ve found all your questions answered…
I’m the oppisite, I want to tinker with windows on my mac. So this is a good situation now having Apple on board with Intel.
This could benefit both MS and Apple.
More people buy Macs, because now they can install Widnows on them and play their games, run their apps, yada yada. That’s very simple to understand.
At the same time, while Apple’s OSX marketshare increases, Windows userbase probably won’t be dented, or might even slightly increase because of those who use Mac, but want to play games without buying a PC.
So Apple’s market share increases, Microsoft’s decreases, and the Windows userbase remains realtively stable. What does this mean?
If the market share for OSX reaches a certain point, Microsoft will no longer be considered a monopoly and will have previous restrictions placed on them removed.
I see tons of people want Microsoft to lose a lot of market share to make things more “fair”. I wonder how they would feel about Microsoft being less restricted by law?
The legal restrictions are needed because of Microsoft’s marketshare. As competition increases, the market will probably sort it all out without legal intervention–in fact, further legel intervention would probably hurt the market.
Did I say otherwise? I said that if their market share goes down, those legal restrictions may be lifted.
The “too many hardware variances to deal with” is why I listed it as the *UNIX community taking care of that with drivers.
Apple should get market share. Are you sure the stability of the MacOS depends on drivers as much as it does on the fact that UNIX/Linux have experianced a better stability rating? As drivers/hardware is only part of stability, I would say the quality of the low-level parts of the OS itself are just as important.
I would still like Apple to sell OS X for generic PC’s.
The only thing I like that comes from Cupertino is OS X. I do not care for iPod’s as they are overated pieces of ****. OS X and quality standards are the only 2 things separating Apple from Dell, HP and Gateway.
I think this could be great for both MS and Apple. Who would of thought that die hard mac users would have the opportunity to run Windows XP on their system. I do think that even die hards will try Windows out. Heck, now I’m even excited to try Vista out when MS delivers it.
So MacOS users can try Windows and then make the switch completly to Windows.. Nice
I don’t think that’ll happen. People (me included) went Mac because of Mac OS X. We went to Mac land to avoid running Windows and we always had the choice of running Windows by sticking with our then current PC or by buying a cheaper PC. I doubt that many Mac users buy Macs more for the hardware than the OS. Macs look nice and all but they’re made up of normal PC hardware components.
Some people who wanted to try out Mac but wanted to still have the safety net of having the choice of running Windows without needing to buy a new PC will now buy Macs. I don’t see however that MS is going to lose out loads on this.
Most Windows users will probably still use Windows because it’s what they’re used to or they need it for work and they can’t be bothered dual booting when Windows already does the stuff that they want to do with their computers. Maybe MS will lose some OS market share. Maybe they won’t be as dominant in 50 years time but they’re not going anywhere.
i wonder if this is a hidden “focus shift,” apple ultimately going the route of a hardware-only company. Probably apple is sounding the waters to see how much more popular the mac and OSX becomes in the near future. If it’s just the hardware looks that atttrracts new costumers then maintaining osx would be a financial liability. opening OSX to all hardware makers may raise OSX’s market share and viability. But going that route would make apple too diverse a company. i hope i’m wrong, but i’m seeing the origins of the demise of osx. or may be the OSX division spins off as a separate company…
i hope i’m wrong, but i’m seeing the origins of the demise of osx.
Never. Steve loves his NeXT/OSX, and HATES Windows. He would never drop it in favor of being a hardware only company. He gave an interview a few years ago where he said: “People still don’t get it. Apple is a software company.” You can find this interview on the web still, yet people act like it doesn’t exist and go on and on about how Apple is a hardware company. That’s not the way Steve sees it.
Never. Steve loves his NeXT/OSX, and HATES Windows. He would never drop it in favor of being a hardware only company. He gave an interview a few years ago where he said: “People still don’t get it. Apple is a software company.” You can find this interview on the web still, yet people act like it doesn’t exist and go on and on about how Apple is a hardware company. That’s not the way Steve sees it.
Dixit Jobs : “Apple’s core strength is to bring very high technology to mere mortals in a way that surprises and delights them and that they can figure out how to use. Software is the key to that. In fact, software is the user experience. ” ( http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/02/21/8… )
Or as Cringely puts it “Apple is a software company that sells its products inside $1800 boxes.”
“Windows is a great operating system.”
Haha, is today opposite day?
I liked this one from the Apple Bootcamp page ;
<i?Word to the Wise
Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it’ll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft Windows security fixes.
[/i]
Nice advice.