Running Windows on the Intel Macs

[Boyd Ostroff]

http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/17/app...markets07.html

According to Nederkoorn, you simply turn on your computer and press the up key to see an Apple (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people ) OS logo, or the down key to see a Windows logo. Then you choose whichever system you desire at the time.

[Dave Perry]

I've been keeping up with this on macrumors.com.

I still don't understand why someone would want to run windows on their Mac. I can see the excitement from a geek point of view in getting windows to boot on the MacIntels but, IMHO, it defeats the purpose of owning a Mac...tight integration between hardware and a rock solid operating system.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Unfortunately there are still some important applications which just don't run on the Mac. I use a couple GPS'es a lot, and have to keep an old Windows 98 machine around to run that software (actually Garmin just announced they will port their software to the Mac, but it won't be available for another year). AutoCAD is another thing some people might want. Or what if I want to play around with Vegas? Or DV Rack?...

I think Apple would have a killer combination with a dual boot machine, and as a stockholder I hope they will bless some way of doing this.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Dave Perry

I still don't understand why someone would want to run windows on their Mac.

That's easy: so you could have the option to own one computer which runs all the software for both operating systems. If Apple had offered that from the beginning they'd probably have a larger market share.

[John C. Chu]

I think it is a great idea to have Intel-Macs be dual bootable.

But here is the catch/concern/speculation I've read and that I would have to agree:

Would some software developers get lazy? So instead of developing a Windows version and a Mac OSX version, they just develop only the Windows version and say to the Mac user: Just run it under Windows!

No chance of course for committed Mac developers like Adobe...but some of the "less commited" developers might be tempted.

But then again, hey---it gives Mac users choices and options. And that is a good thing.

[Dave Perry]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

That's easy: so you could have the option to own one computer which runs all the software for both operating systems. If Apple had offered that from the beginning they'd probably have a larger market share.

Actually, from the begining, Apple was the dominant PC manufacturer as far as market share was concerned. After they fired Steve Jobs in 1985, a series of bad decisions and incompetent CEOs led to the loss of market share.

When Jobs was hired back in 1998 as "interem CEO" he saved his company and stopped all licensing of Mac OS to other Mac clone manufactures.

Any way, I understand "why" people use windows, I just don't understand why they want to :) I'm a long time windows user my self, but no longer. Some of the apps I used to use are windows only, and I don't miss them. All I do is video, print, graphics, and some minor office work...so the Mac has me covered :)

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Dave Perry

Some of the apps I used to use are windows only, and I don't miss them.

Just don't plan on using a GPS for much, cause the software to load maps into them is Windows-only (for now). Virtual PC has been problematic for this due to USB driver issues. The other thing I occasionally need a PC for is running software to edit cues for our computerized lighting consoles.

I've used the Mac ever since the beginning (I bought the 512K "Fat Mac" back in 1985). Before I had an Apple ][ :-)

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Dave Perry

Actually, from the begining, Apple was the dominant PC manufacturer as far as market share was concerned. After they fired Steve Jobs in 1985, a series of bad decisions and incompetent CEOs led to the loss of market share.

I think you'd be hard put to find statistics showing Apple ever had more than a 20% share of the global PC market, which is the highest figure I've heard from back in their glory days. If it had been otherwise, Windows wouldn't have become the de facto standard PC operating system, and we wouldn't be stuck with 10 million+ lines of OS spaghetti code.

I use Windows because I got tired of the high up-front cost of Macintosh computers, and because I've found tools I like for Windows which aren't available on Macs. Give me one computer which runs everything and I might consider buying it, but until then I don't have a need for a cloistered proprietary computing platform.

[Jason Lowe]

It's so refreshing to read a discussion about this topic that doesn't mention games :)

For myself, I like the ability to have both on one computer because I've been using the Cinemacraft encoder on the PC for my DVD video encoding. It's much faster than Compressor (encodes slightly faster than real-time on a 2 year old P4 3.0Ghz machine), and gives much better quality results.

I've actually seen this hack running on a Macbook Pro. It works very well, except for video drivers (which should be coming soon) and a few other minor quirks. As long as Apple doesn't throw a monkey wrench into the works (it requires a modified xom.efi file for dual booting) it will be a handy solution.

[Michael Campanella]

I don't know that I like the idea of being able to run Windows on a Mac. The last couple of years Apple has been making great progress in getting application ported over, or creating alternatives that can stand side by side with industry standard apps. If Windows runs natively on a Mac, where is the pressure on companies to port their software? I think with Apple's growing popularity they should continue to put pressure on companies to develop OS-X native versions of their products.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Well I don't really agree with that, but this guy agrees with you....

http://yahoo.businessweek.com/techno...322_658188.htm

Indeed, this is no time to make nice with Microsoft and Windows. Now that it's got a little extra time before Vista is available to consumers, Apple should make every effort before January to take all the market share it can.

[John C. Chu]

Originally Posted by Dave Perry

Actually, from the begining, Apple was the dominant PC manufacturer as far as market share was concerned. After they fired Steve Jobs in 1985, a series of bad decisions and incompetent CEOs led to the loss of market share.

I've been a huge Macintosh fan since 1991, but from the beginning, one important decision led Apple to being a "niche" player--and that is the policy of not licensing the Macintosh operating system.

Bill Gates, who was developing programs for the Mac from the beginning tried to convince Steve Jobs/Apple to license the operating system to other PC manufacturers but Apple said, "No way!t That's the crown jewels!"

So Bill and Microsoft went ahead and developed Windows for the PC. It wasn't as nice and as polished as the Mac--but hey, it "works" and cost a hell of a lot cheaper---important in the business world.

This was, of course a brilliant move, and led to Windows being EVERYWHERE and then Microsoft can sell all kinds of other software that works under Windows.

If Apple had licensed their operating system, I think the world will be a different place. And Bill Gates would "be just a regular millionaire--instead of a billionaire that he is today."

Of course, if Apple had done that--would the Mac be as good as it is today?--Having strict control of your hardware, means that plug and play really does work.

Poor Microsoft has to juggle a millions of differrent possible configurations of computers and I'm alway surprised that it works as well as it does.

For further reading and viewing:

"Triumph of the Nerds" on DVD
http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?...d=29325251_0_0

and

"Insanely Great, The Life and Times of The Macintosh" by Steven Levy
http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/B...291776,00.html

[Boyd Ostroff]

Well that's a very controversial topic. Remember, Apple did license the Mac for a short while under Gil Amelio (remember Power Computer and e-Machines?). When Steve Jobs returned he quickly put an end to that, and has strongly opposed any licensing ever since.

If they had licensed MacOS in the beginning as you suggest, I'm not sure the outcome would have been so good. Apple would be gone as a hardware company and you wouldn't have the benefit of the tightly integrated hardware software experience. Instead, we'd have the equivalent of a lot of different kinds of Windows boxes running some odd version of MacOS ;-)

Considering what Steve Jobs has done with Apple, and the respect he's earned in the business community, I'm not about to second-guess him on the licensing issue. However, it wouldn't surprise me to see Apple license MacOS in the future. Seems like the potential income is getting so great that it will be hard to resist forever.

[Nick Jushchyshyn]

BTW: If you have iTunes, you can check out this bootup in action demo-ed by Leo Laporte on his video podcast MacBreak. He and a friend (Ben Durbin) had a Mac Mini booting up WinXP on the episode released last Friday.

Previous episodes also show some cool stuff about how they're gearing up the MacBreak show production, shooting on a greenscreen set using CineAlta F950 cameras. Fun stuff. :)

[Jason Lowe]

Originally Posted by Michael Campanella

I don't know that I like the idea of being able to run Windows on a Mac. The last couple of years Apple has been making great progress in getting application ported over, or creating alternatives that can stand side by side with industry standard apps. If Windows runs natively on a Mac, where is the pressure on companies to port their software? I think with Apple's growing popularity they should continue to put pressure on companies to develop OS-X native versions of their products.

It's a complex issue, to be sure. One of the rumor sites recently reported that Adobe is preparing a version of the Production Studio (Premiere Pro, Encore, etc) for the Intel Macintosh. Adobe apparantly has at least some faith in the future of the platform, or maybe they just see Windows Vista as this generations "New Coke". Either way, it's a win for Apple.

I think what it will come down to is IT departments and serious professionals will not be willing to let mission critical apps run on hacked software.