Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

-Short Attention Span Theater-

Apple will allow Windows to run on machines

2006-04-06

Apple Computer Inc., abandoning its historic practice of running only its own operating system on its personal computers, yesterday rolled out software enabling buyers of Apple's new Intel-based Macintosh computers to install the Windows platform built by rival Microsoft Corp.

But God help you if you try to run OS X on a non-Apple pc.

The move, which caught much of the technology world by surprise, was seen as a bid to boost Apple's share of the PC market -- estimated at less than 5 percent -- by reaching beyond its base of Mac loyalists to the larger universe of ordinary computer users more familiar with the ubiquitous Windows. ''It's a huge departure," said Ted Schadler, vice president and principal analyst at Forrester Research in Cambridge. ''It's a big deal. But it's tied to their business model: Apple is a hardware company."

Schadler, who posted a blog entry yesterday titled ''Apple Runs Windows, Pigs Fly," projected that Apple could double its market share by appealing to consumers who first learned Windows on office computers and later bought home computers powered by Windows. Many have been drawn to Apple Stores over the past few years to buy iPod music players and have admired Mac designs, but they are intimidated about switching to Mac OS. Down the road, Apple could target the bigger market of businesses and other enterprises by licensing, supporting, and pre-installing Windows on future Macs, Schadler suggested.

OK, explain why I'd want to pay a lot more for a Mac computer to run Windows?

Happy to answer that, m'boy:

Mac OS X is simply better. You're not waiting for Vista, are you? OS X doesn't crash, doesn't get infected, doesn't spawn gigabytes of crap, etc.

Macs are sleek, clean, uncluttered, and have everything you need. I have an iMac intel (with both systems installed as of last night) at home and a Mac dual G5 at work. They simply are designed better.

Intel-based Macs cost little more than an Intel-based PC (comp specs, of course) -- for that modest upcharge you get 1) both operating systems 2) better industrial design and 3) oh, did I mention it was a Mac?

Posted by:Steve

#17 I have a 17" PowerBook 1GB/80GB G4 with Tiger and it is, by far, the best computer I have ever had (4th MAC along with 8 or so PCs). Apples are elegant, well-designed, relaible, fully-featured, advanced, in short, everything a laptop should be. And yes, Apple is overpriced.

Apple OS X is based on BSD 4.3 UNIX and it is, to say the lease, a robust OS. I know as I run a lot of alpha and beta publishing software tests and I can count the number of crashes on one hand. On OS 9, one could easily have 5-10 crashes a day (yes, we were pushing them beyond their limits) Compared to Windows or OS 9, OS X is a freaking M1A2 Abrams tank. Invincible and indefatigable. And the MAC still has a 'personality', i.e. the image of a bomb when older OS versions crashed! Sa-weeet. Does soul-less WINTEL offer this?

And when I pull it out in the airport, everyone with their little Dells and HPs furtively look over and wonder: "Who IS that guy?". Sa-weeet!

While there are some applications I don't have (IE, MS-MessenegerEntourage, not Outlook, etc), I NEVER have to worry about viruses, registry problems, spyware, MS holes everywhere, etc. Unless, of course, one installs a dual boot version. *SIghs*

Even if a MacBook Pro is $2500 full-boat, at least $1000 more than a comparable PC box, it is well worth it. You will live in OS X and only use XP when you have to. It is that good, my friends.

I will be getting my new (work) MacBook Pro with 2GB/100GB/g wireless/bluetooth/FW400/built-in webcam. It will be going in as a dual boot, for sure. Wish me luck!

Posted by: Brett 2006-04-06 23:25

#16 I still remember the wag who created a Mac screensaver that brought up a black screen and a C prompt with blinking cursor...

Posted by: Seafarious 2006-04-06 15:48

#15 Snens,

Today...

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1946848,00.asp

;)

Posted by: gb506 2006-04-06 15:45

#14 With the Intel chip on a Mac, how long would it be before some third-party technology allowed dual-booting of any OS anyone desired? This was a pre-emptive move by Apple, and a smart one at that. Good for them. Previously I wouldn't have considered a Mac, but now it's an option.

Posted by: Snens Ebbotch8930 2006-04-06 15:33

#13 Liberalhawk, nice list of strategy games, notice that there are no First Person shooters or sports games on that list. Also note that Xbox 360 is still trickling out and the Playstation is coming soon. I think you're seeing the last hurrah.

Strategy games may survive on the PC because the nature of game play doesn't sit well with a game controller, but that's not the largest segment of games and I think second place is warranted.

Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-04-06 15:21

#12 #9 Really? Civ4 has redeemed that franchise, Galciv2, the Sims2, Simcity4, Children of the Nile, AOE3, Rome Total War, Europa Universalis 3 coming, I mean this is going to be looked at as the golden age of PC gaming.

Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-04-06 15:10

#11 My Powerbook and I survive quite nicely in the Windowed halls of corporate America. The only Windows only app that I have to put up with is Microsoft Project. For that, I use Virtual PC. The advantage accruing to the Mac is that not having to worry about the constant barrage of viruses that infest our PC networks. Not an inconsequential consideration. Nevertheless, I will probably upgrade to an intel based MacBook Pro when the next operating system (Mac OS 10.5 aka Leopard) comes out in August with the capability to dual boot, Windows when I have to and Leopard the rest of the time.

Posted by: RWV 2006-04-06 13:35

#10 Someone should tell Apple is it very important to have dinner, movie and a nice shiny ring before they let Bill pull their panties off.

Posted by: badanov 2006-04-06 13:30

#9 I hate to tell the PC gamers out there but...

Game companies are expecting such higher levels of sales for the console games (Xbox and Playstation) that the PCs are the new Macs when it comes to game sales (and Macs fall off the chart totally).

Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-04-06 12:33

#8 OK, explain why I'd want to pay a lot more for a Mac computer to run Windows?

I agree...whats the point? The attraction to Mac, for some, is the OS. Partitian the hard drive and run dual OS. It's really not all that expensive, complicated, or cumbersome.

Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-04-06 12:30

#7 but games always come out on Macs a year to late!!! thats what stops me from wanting one as great as they are all the games are always delayed from when PC games are out :(

Posted by: ShepUK 2006-04-06 12:23

#6 Notice there really aren't any Microsoft computers. Other people make the hardware. You can still go down to local shops to get a customized box. You can buy an average bundled off the shelf system for around $500.

For all the continued hype about Apple, they're still locked into a proprietary box. They sell hardware. The only thing that keeps them from scalping the consumer even more on price is the competition from the Intel world of MSBorg.

So now post about how incredably terrible the MS-Intel systems are. Yep, beta was better than VHS. There were a lot of 'better' technologies out there which in the end lost because of incompetent marketing strategies and corporate egos.

Posted by: Phererong Hupeans7359 2006-04-06 12:16

#5 I like the idea. I like the looks and some of the technical features of Apples, but have a large investment in Windows software. I would like to see how they perform price / performance / ergonometrically. I like their hugish 16:9 screens, I don't like the mice, etc. The consumer comes out the winner here, if only from the point of view that it broadens choices. That may sound motherhood and apple pie-ish, but I think it is still true.

Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2006-04-06 11:20

#4 (1) Knowing there will be head-to-head competition on exactly the same hardware Microsoft will tweak their OS to work better on that hardware (they can't tweak for the billion other changing hardware variations but they can tweak for one). If you like stability it could be worth paying more. (2) If you wanted to go Apple but have lots of legacy apps for the PC you are unwilling to part with you might now consider Apple hardware as an option. This is particular important for corporations. (3) Assume you have a Windows box but mostly run Linux on it and use the Windows side for games. You've wanted a full blown BSD Unix but the Mac has no games. Now you have an option.

And from the Mac side there has always been a select number of programs (Games primarily although few admit it) that are Windows only. This allows you to have the games without buying a seperate box or dealing with the gimped down Softwindows or other emulators.

Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-04-06 11:16

#3 I think it's about gamers, the big selling pc games take ages to get ported over to Mac, if at all.

Posted by: Steve 2006-04-06 11:10

#2 OK, explain why I'd want to pay a lot more for a Mac computer to run Windows?

Price performance is now fairly comparable. Ease of use, reliability, elegance and simplicity are the primary reasons.

I use both and prefer the Mac more with each Windows release. I look forward to seeing if Vista is worth installing.

Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-04-06 11:01

#1 If one doesn't like Windows, then the ability to run something one doesn't like is useful only when one HAS to run a Windows-only app, and if one likes Windows, seems to me that PCs are more customized towards Windows than Macs, considering that the Mac build and the Mac OS have grown up together like PCs and Windows have.

Posted by: Edward Yee 2006-04-06 10:57

00:00