Winows and Mac on your PC?

[Dodge7]

I am wonder what Winodws users think of Apple's annnoucement that the Mac OS will run on Intel equipment in a year. Would any of you cansider a dual boot Windows - Mac OS X system to use itools?

Just curious... what you all think. I've been trying Linux on my PC... for *me*, Linux wasn't as user friendly as Windows, but I think OS X is "average users
refined and would be a nicee way to play around with *nix. And the iLife Suite is pretty nice to...

[kram 2.0]

Like OEM_GUY, I doubt that Apple's move will allow Windows-based systems to install Apple Mac OS X - there will be something preventing the operating system from installing on regular non-Apple proprietary hardware. Yes - I agree. Apple's Operating system is very user-friendly. However, I've found Windows XP to be a lot better than its predecessors in terms of ease of use - yet, Apple appeals to the average user who would rather not mess around.

kram

[jeofrey10100900]

first time i heard of this and its definately a GREAT NEWS! thumbs UP on OS X!. but dual booting with windows, well....id rather keep for my self. LINUX SUSE + OS X!!! GOOD COMBO. :)

[Dodge7]

Hmmm... I hadn't thought of that, they could still make it so only "Apple Intel" hardware would work. Still, it could be an easy hack over overcome ... have to see.

I think it would be to their advantage to sell the OS sto standards Win-tel users.

And yes, Windows XP has made Winodow easy enought, but I still like the iLife features and would buy OS X just for that.

[Dodge7]

Of course, the disadvantage is for current users, unless Apple planse to make the OS for Mtotrola chips for a few years.
............................................................
Computer - white box filled with electronic. and parts manufacturers on whic wouldn't place them name

[Force Flow]

I would slap it on a spare machine just to play with it. It would be a lot less expensive than buying a mac outright.

[jimmyrules712]

if mac OS could be put on any machine, i think windows would have real competition (no offense linux) for once.

[Stuey]

Far cheaper than a Mac mini, an OS X choice for a PC would surely create fierce competition. Consumers could only benefit from this! Although what are the real chances that Apple and MS will make interchangeable operating systems. Unfortunately I think that we all are getting too excited and we'll ultimately be disappointed. :(

[netnamakan]

I doubt Mac would do it. It would be suicide for all the computers they make, people would just buy a cheap dell and load OS X on it. However, cutting their losses in the hardware market could set them up to score big on software.

namakan

[hobey19]

wanna give it a whirl?

http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/

not saying it replaces the real thing (i love my mac, but i could never leave my pc outright, need 'em both), but it will give you an idea. of course, you still have to get the software, but with apple's academic discounts, its great for students

craig

[Staren]

I'm not a big fan of the mac OS just for the simple fact I learned computers on Windows 3.1 and Unix. But I would love to see this come to pass. It would force the price of Windows down to a less insane mark up at the very least.

[Mac Medic]

I would slap it on a spare machine just to play with it. It would be a lot less expensive than buying a mac outright.

And thats exactly why you won't be able to do it. Apple are a hardware company plain and simple. 90% of their revenue comes from hardware sales. They only make an OS to sell hardware. They won't risk losing that 90% revenue just to sell a few extra copies of OS X. They would rather PC users bought Mac hardware to run OS X and keep those big profit margins. They'll tout the x86 archictecture as being able to run all your windows apps on the mac at full speed rather than emulation speed in an OS that does not have a single virus or spyware as a reason to switch. of course the windows apps would be running in emulation but with x86 hardware they should run at full machine speed unless M$ cripple virtual PC just to prevent this scenario form happening period.

[rcvalencia9]

If they will allow Mac OS to be installed in our PCs right now. Their hardware will also decrease prices to create a competition. And there will still be an advantage for MACs because it's created and tested with their own hardware. But I love to have a dual boot with a Mac OS and Windows.

[mairving]

I'm not a big fan of the mac OS just for the simple fact I learned computers on Windows 3.1 and Unix. But I would love to see this come to pass. It would force the price of Windows down to a less insane mark up at the very least.
Windows is reasonably priced particularly when you compare it to MS Office or their server line of products.

[Statica]

Windows is reasonably priced particularly when you compare it to MS Office or their server line of products.

It's very reasonably priced IMO, dont just consider the boot up sequence that takes you to a GUI. Consider a platform that is easy to use, and provides you the layer to install some of the most popular software and hardware available. Also consider the out-of-the-box support that manufacturers provide for your platform. Compare it with buying an upgrade to an Apple OS, and given the limited outreach of the Apple platform and pricing at par with XP (or more depending on where you shop for it)... I'd say that XP is reasonably priced for an OS.
Of course, we could argue that UNIX or Linux is priced right, but most people don't want climb that learning curve.

[glc]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the Intel chips that Apple is going to use are not x86 architecture - Intel is going to get into the PowerPC game.

[Mac Medic]

They haven't said whether x86 or not. The demo machine at WWDC was a 3.6ghz P4, so that was x86, and the developer hardware is the same spec, so while they didn't officially announce which processor is to be used I assume it will be x86, I just don't think it'll be any current model Intel processor. It'll have to be 64bit, preferably multi core, it'll have to be MP capable (which the P4 isn't) and it'll have to be able to render multiple streams of video effectively (at least as effectively as the G5) and as far as I can see there isn't an Intel processor on the market that fill that niche. I have no idea what Apple saw during their talks with Intel but it must have been good, no way Apple would consider a processor that didn't perform better than the G5 so it has to be a development Intel part they looked at.

[ric449]

Maybe a Pentium D? Basically a dual core P4 with 64 bit extensions.

[doctorgonzo]

No matter what chip Intel makes for Apple, x86 or not (although this (http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2439) says that it will be x86), you won't be able to install Mac OS on your Wintel machine. If I had to guess, I would say that the chips made by Intel for Apple will have some kind of design feature specific to them that Mac OS will need to see before it will install. Sure, somebody might crack it, but then you've got a cracked OS with all of its incipient problems.

[Lamilia]

XP-linux and XP-OS X are/would be the best combos XP because of gaming and linux and OS X because....just because.

[rspassey]

who wants to mess around wiht two OS's besides, i despise mac, might as well get linux for free or run of dos, mac if the enemy to all things good

[kram 2.0]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the Intel chips that Apple is going to use are not x86 architecture - Intel is going to get into the PowerPC game.
That would be good. Apple would still be touting its unique PowerPC CPU while Intel might find a way out of NetBurst.who wants to mess around wiht two OS's besides, i despise mac, might as well get linux for free or run of dos, mac if the enemy to all things good
That's your opinion.

kram

[Lamilia]

who wants to mess around wiht two OS's besides, i despise mac, might as well get linux for free or run of dos, mac if the enemy to all things good
If you don't like windows but you need it for a gaming rig then you can get the best of both worlds

[Mac Medic]

Apparently you will be able to dual boot...... But only on Apple Hardware

"After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that." However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said."

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

So it will be x86, the dual core pentium m is slated for powerbooks, nice!!!!

[netnamakan]

The dual core pentium m is slated for powerbooks, nice!!!!

Thats the best news I have heard all day :D

[rspassey]

agreed

[Mac Medic]

Course, it'll prob only be a matter of months before some industrious hacker type get's it running on his e-machine!!.

[Force Flow]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the Intel chips that Apple is going to use are not x86 architecture - Intel is going to get into the PowerPC game.

Hmm...I was pretty sure Steve Jobs said that he was running a P4 3.06GHz in the machine he was using to give his presentation.

[netnamakan]

Take a look at this

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/14/1442212&tid=93&tid=3

[alfie2]

Just curious:
did Mr Jobs get permission from Mr. Gate?
dont Mr Gate, er... MicroSoft, owns a portion of Apple?
or
Am I wrong?

[mairving]

Just curious:
did Mr Jobs get permission from Mr. Gate?
dont Mr Gate, er... MicroSoft, owns a portion of Apple?
or
Am I wrong?
No MS doesn't own any part of Apple. They did invest (bribe) $150M in Apple awhile back. The reasons aren't quite clear but there is plenty of speculation. Some would say that it was done to make IE the default browser in Mac's. More likely is that MS wanted Apple to keep going because they were making some good money on Office for the Mac.

[Force Flow]

Take a look at this

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/14/1442212&tid=93&tid=3
yep, x86 architecture. Looks like they're taking the Dell/Gateway route by only allowing the installation of the software when certain hardware is detected.

I can't tell from the article if they're going to be using the BIOS to determine this, or an ID in the CPU (if they do it with the CPU, I'm guessing they're going to be using id technology similar to what was found in some PII's)

[mountainking]

no i think they are going to make it so that the OS works on only certain chipsets and the chipsets will only be offered in apple systems.

[Mac Medic]

Whatever they do there's still a good chance somebody will figure out how to install it on other hardware. Whether or not there will be any drivers for that hardware would remain to be seen. Apple aren't going to bundle chipset drivers for other chipsets etc..

[Statica]

I guess that's going to be the whole issue on how Apple defines its role going forward - does it want to be known as a hardware developer or a software developer. Throughout its history, Apple has been sticking to its guns of being a hardware developer.
If Apple is to dominate the PC segment, it needs to step away from trying to make expensive, but oh so pretty hardware (at least for the personal computing segment) and try to become a software developer only. This might be the only chance it gets to make some inroads into this huge market waiting out there.

The Apple OS has been historically wonderful, what's stifled popularity has been their own ridiculous controls. I dont know how they are going to deal with it, but if it were me, I would give up trying to hawk pretty boxes exclusively and try to create a platform (the OS has shown to be well capable of converting people). It isn't even that they should probably look at potential losses from not being able to sell as many of their hardware devices .. they should perhaps also take stock that people dont want to try out their OS because of their expensive hardware... & subsequent limited software.

[ric449]

Looks like Apple could be using a hardware based approach to stop you using OSX on a regular PC:

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2137787/security-chip-block-non-macs

[mountainking]

thats kinda what i figured they'd do. Apple is never going to let the general public use OSX. But what they dont realize is that OSX isnt good enough to spend 2k on a brand new system just so you can use it.

[Statica]

Interesting dilemma for Apple : http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-5749940.html .. Dell would be interested in the OSX if Apple allows it.

[Mac Medic]

Well, heres the system, XP installs without a hitch apparently, OS X does not install on a regular PC though.

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelmac.html

[kram 2.0]

Well, heres the system, XP installs without a hitch apparently, OS X does not install on a regular PC though.

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelmac.html
This is really starting to scare me - I hope that this won't be the case for the final release.

kram

[David M]

I still cant figure out what Steve Job's ultimatly is attempting to do. Why not continue down the same path as before selling proprietary AAPL machines with the AAPL OS? An INTC machine does not seem like a Mac. Maybe thats the problem Macaholics are having?

Some wise guy will eventually crack the AAPL OS code...IMHO. It's already happened to RIAA a few times....not that I condone it.

Can AAPL legally stop a PC manufacturer from a making a machine that can run the Mac OS?