Apple to allow XP to run native on Macs

[n2doc]

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Shares of Apple Computer gained early Wednesday after the company released software to enable its Mac computers based on Intel processors to run Microsoft's Windows XP operating system.

Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple said the software, called Boot Camp, is currently available for download in a public beta version, and that the application will be a feature in Leopard, the next major release of its own Mac OS X operating system.
The company said the software is a preview version licensed for use on a trial basis for a limited time. Apple also said it won't provide support for installing or running Boot Camp and noted it doesn't sell or support Windows software.
Details:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Kewl, now if they just...

let OSX run on Wintel hardware, the cycle will be complete.

[benburch]

42. Shhh.... Don't let anybody know I told you this.

They PLAN to.

The OSX adaptor software for non-Apple hardware will be sold separately, and will likely cost $125 per CPU.

This will likely hit the market next January at the Mac conference.

I got this from an inside source.

They could, of course, change their minds still, so don't make plans based on this.

[TreasonousBastard]

87. OK, I got a secret, too...

When OS X first came out I asked an Apple rep hanging out at CompUSA if, since it was based on freeBSD, it could be hacked onto a Wintel machine.

He said it had been done. But, it wasn't easy-- a lot of hardware-specific stuff and drivers had to be dealt with.

Anyway, the thought of running OSX, Linux, and XP Pro on the same hardware looks like a winner, even if it means having two or three cheap PCs networked. Now, if someone comes up with a way for me to seamlessly work on my my WordPerfect files and OS X...

Way back in the Win3.11 days, IBM's OS/2 had a wondrous way of putting two multithreaded OS's into two virtual machines that ran on a 486SX with only 2MB ram. One can only hope history repeats itself, even if it has to take gobs of ram and HD space.

[benburch]

91. VMWare can probably make this happen.

I can already run OSX (or OS8-9) under Linux, though, using MOL (Mac On Linux) with my PPC Macs. I used to have Yellowdog Linux on a PPC 7100-100 woth MacOS 9 in MOL. Worked great. Gave the 7100 to my son, though, and never bothered repeating the experiment as the Darwin layer of OSX was plenty for my applications.

[benburch]

93. Oh, and...

There was an Intel version of MacOS 7, too. It was called "Star Trek" as a code name. Apple has been planning for this day for well over a decade.

[RoyGBiv]

129. Funny tangent ...

That "woundrous" thing you mention was the final straw that inspired my mom to retire.

Some politician made a deal, and the DHS (Department of Human Services) computers were set up this way. It created nightmarish problems for the rank and file people who had to deal with it. In theory, it worked great. In practice, it was put to uses that were never intended and ended up creating more problems than it solved.

Anyway, my mother was eligible for early retirement, and after a particularly nasty "end of fiscal year" period where massive amounts of data were compiled and entered three separate times because it kept getting corrupted, she had had enough. It had been simpler and more efficient, she said, when they were using DOS based apps.

[htuttle]

2. Ohhh! This just Freakin' Rocks!

I just got a Macbook Pro this week, and have wished I could do this at times. (I used to rely on Virtual PC on my G4 for these tasks).

Now I can do this! Woot!

[meegbear]

3. Yumpin' Yimminie!

That's cool.

[greenman3610]

4. ok, now they've got to kick Adobe in the ass

and get photoshop up to steam on the intel boxes,
so I can upgrade.

I was in NYC for spring vacation, and the Apple store.
(my sister in law has a loft a block away)
My daughter and I spent an hour playing with all
the toys, and I am definitely putting money away for
a new Imac.

[bpilgrim]

5. Unix, Windows and Mac all rolled into one...

geek nirvana has been attained, oohhhmmm...

peace

[zulchzulu]

22. ...and all running at the same time!

Tis delicious...

[benburch]

54. Gets even better. NO MICROSOFT LICENSE NEEDED...

There is a project that has been on Linux for years called WINE, and there is now a port of WINE to Darwin, the Unix OS that lies under MacOS X. With DarWINE you will be able to run many Windows applications and not need a Microsoft License AT ALL.

[melissinha]

6. aren't people figuring out how to do that on Tiger

with the new Intel chip??

Or so my boyfriend tells me.... He's got the new MacBook, showed some Windows standard stuff on it.
HE was a little apprehensive about the move from Power PC, but if the ability to run the Windows on Mac could allow people to use a lot of other software.

[brooklynite]

8. They already have...

http://onmac.net/

[brooklynite]

7. It wasn't clear from the Press Release...

if this was a native operation or an emulation. The real question though, is how well the video drivers work. I'm desperate to get MS Train Simulator running, and even some older PC's don't do it well.

[htuttle]

9. Looks like it runs native

I'm downloading the installer right now, and have been reading the documentation. The Boot Camp installer creates a seperate partition on your hard drive to install Windows onto. You can then boot into it as another OS on the Mac by holding down the option key at startup and choosing it from the boot screen.

[brooklynite]

10. Does this mean...

...you need to reformat your drive?

[htuttle]

13. No

The documentation says that the BootCamp installer includes a tool to create a separate partition without reformatting your drive -- Assuming it's not too full, I'd imagine.

[alfredo]

77. It works like Partion Magic

http://www.symantec.com/home_homeoffice/products/system_performance/pm80/index.html

[evlbstrd]

11. It's clear enough:

"Run XP natively
Once you’ve completed Boot Camp, simply hold down the option key at startup to choose between Mac OS X and Windows. (That’s the “alt” key for you longtime Windows users.) After starting up, your Mac runs Windows completely natively. Simply restart to come back to Mac."

[alfredo]

72. Yep it runs natively

Run XP natively
Once you’ve completed Boot Camp, simply hold down the option key at startup to choose between Mac OS X and Windows. (That’s the “alt” key for you longtime Windows users.) After starting up, your Mac runs Windows completely natively. Simply restart to come back to Mac.

[Karmakaze]

12. Great!

So now there is absolutely no reason to buy a Mac!

On edit: Oh, and LOL at all the Mac people who a reacting like this was manna from heaven! Those same people only a few days ago were ripping Windows, and now they are praising Apple for making it possible to run it on their machines! ROFLMAO!

[eeyore]

16. What the hell are you talking about?

Your shitty comment makes absolutely no sense.

Did it ever occur to you that there are people out there for whom it makes sense to run just one or two Windows apps?

No one here was being shitty about anything before you showed up.

Whatever man, take it somewhere else.

[Karmakaze]

20. Touchy...

Did I hit a nerve?

Did it ever occur to you that there are people out there for whom it makes sense to run just one or two Windows apps?

Funny, in all my time on a PC, I have never thought "Damn I wish I could run just one or two Mac apps".

Still, I don't blame you for being happy. If I couldn't run some of the apps I run now because I had a Mac, I would be pretty happy too :)

[Touchdown]

73. I never needed to run a Windows ap, so there.

...not even teen-boy cartoon whacking material like "Unreal Tournament 2004".

[MrPrax]

76. LOL...

Yeah the only 'app' I ever considered wanting to run was that old flying toaster screensaver!!

I still remember being taken on a test drive by a MAC fanatic with his new PowerPC...he was beside himself showing me how easy it was to delete a file!!

"you see, you highlight it and then DRAG it to the garbage can...SEE!!" I was nearly on the floor...those guys are too much.

[mattclearing]

21. Dumbest. Post. Ever. n/t

[Karmakaze]

25. I dunno, yours is pretty close!

But I have seen worse.

Some pretty touchy reactions from the Macophiles. Yesterday when MS was talking about rootkits and how damaging they are, I bet you were jumping on the "bash Windows" bandwaggon!

[mattclearing]

37. I do Windows tech-support.

And yes, I am on the bash Windows bandwagon. I'm sick of fixing them. I've reinstalled two machines, and had to dick around with the registries of several others because of spyware/rootkits. It's irritating as hell.

You shouldn't have to buy/download extra software to patch holes in your operating system.

[no name no slogan]

40. But without Windows, we'd be unemployed

Every day I thank my lucky stars that MS still churns out buggy bloatware. Why? Because I make a very good living off of fixing their errors.

[mattclearing]

61. True.

But I'm getting out of the business. Life's too short to ask people if they've rebooted their machines yet for a living. :)

[Karmakaze]

43. Hmm.. Well neither OSX or Linux have that ability...

They both have security patches to fix holes, and if Windows disappeared today, you'd be dicking around geting rid of malware on Linux or OSX tomorrow.

The fact is, to be usable, computers also have to be slightly less secure than they can be. Sure you can make an absolutely secure OS, but would you want to use it?

[mattclearing]

62. True.

And Microsoft is starting to go there, and I don't want to use it.

I remember going to one of the MS Security conferences a few years back, and they were talking about how "email attachments are the enemy."

I was like, "You've got to be fucking kidding me." Who's going to want to go back to pre-attachment email?

MS has been pretty wrong-headed about the Internet in general.

[Karmakaze]

79. That I have to agree on...

The absolute worst thing MS has ever done was IE. And not just the fact they made a buggy browser, but that they integrated it with the OS. That was - and is - absolute insanity. There was no reason for it, except MS had these big dollar signs in their eyes. They were thinking "application rental". They wanted to make us rent apps on their servers, rather than buy and install apps on our computers. Thats is why they integrated IE so thoroughly into the OS.

Of course they didnt stop to think that no sane person on the planet would want to rely on the internet for all their application needs, and they REALLY didnt stop to think whether it was a good idea to make so much of the OS open to the net.

It is the fallout from that decision that we are dealing with today. Most if not all the major Windows security holes are centered around the concept of rental applications. Sure some corporate networks now use some of that functionality (RPC for example) but they built it into even their lowest end home user OS. So now we are fighting with "features" rather than "flaws" - bit by bit, MS is taking out these "features" that we never needed, never wanted, and never use, to try and re-secure the OS.

Im still trying to figure out why anyone would want scripts embedded in email to automatically execute. I mean seriously what is the point? What genius thought it would be a good thing to have email able to execute code on your computer without your express permission?

Grr...

[IsIt1984Yet]

116. I'd ask a web developer about a statement you made

"they integrated it with the OS. That was - and is - absolute insanity. There was no reason for it, except MS had these big dollar signs in their eyes. They were thinking "application rental". They wanted to make us rent apps on their servers, rather than buy and install apps on our computers. Thats is why they integrated IE so thoroughly into the OS."

I am not a developer, per se... but I know that ActiveX sure as hell has it's place. You can do anything in a web app that you can do in a desktop build. And deployment and maintenance is a breeze. Anyone developing desktop apps for internal business uses now is way behind the times. Think about it... updating code and deploying and boom, all 975 users are using the updated code vs. trying to deploy a 'build' to desktops? Puleeeze. The "uber-cool" open source apps don't support the proprietary ActiveX as well as other controls.

[Karmakaze]

117. True...

But it is more than just ActiveX though, it is the fact that IE is totally integrated into the OS. The desktop is just a limited verion of IE, as is Windows Explorer. So all the weaknesses of IE are also present in Windows Explorer and the Desktop. Digging even deeper though you have systems that are exposed to the net that should never have been exposed such as RPC which allows remote systems to execute code on the local desktop.

ActiveX itself was a good idea done badly, but it would have been useful if it had been secure enough to be trustworthy. But ease of use won out and so it wasnt secure enough. Sure you can make nifty web apps, but you can also make annoying "toolbars" that spy on you, and you can make other malware that self installs.

[IsIt1984Yet]

118. Again, hackers code to it almost exclusively.

Admittedly, I am an MS "groupie" and I am NOT ashamed of it. They are an amazing company with amazing people and the Gates Foundation and Bill's general vibes of philanthropy make me altogether warm and fuzzy about MS. I've met several dozen MS employees - just in the past week and a half. Developers, marketing reps, product managers, executives - every one of them incredibly helpful and accommodating. I think Microsoft is a great company and I am proud to use their products and work with their people. Spring for Deluxe Support with them - it's well worth every dime.

[Karmakaze]

122. I wouldnt call myself a groupie...

But I definately can see that Windows is still the best all round OS. Before all you Apple and Linux people explode, let me explain my reasoning.

Windows was designed to be easy to use for the total novice - like OSX, but unlike Linux. Windows was also designed to be compatible with the widest range of hardware possible - unlike OSX, but Linux is getting there.

This means that Windows is just as flexible and also just as easy to use as any other OS on the market. The other OSes can't quite claim the same. In fact it is fairly easy to get Windows to run on all Intel based Mac's in comparison to getting OSX to run on all IBM PC's.

Because of the limited range of hardware in Macs, only a few drivers need to be created to get WinXP working on every Intel based Mac. The reverse is not true for OSX. To be as flexible as Windows on the IBM PC, it will have to have drivers created for a huge range of hardware devices, and as Linux has shown that is a huge task.

So considering the sheer size of the task (attempting to support every piece of IBM PC hardware, including stuff that hasnt even been made yet) is it any wonder that Windows is more prone to errors? Its definately a jack of all trades. I would be willing to bet that if OSX ever supports the huge range of hardware that Windows does, while still being easy to use for the total novice, that it will suffer many of the same problems Windows suffers from.

[Solon]

125. Your premise is completly false...

Not about Apple, but that was a business decision rather than anything to do with the OS itself. Microsoft's Windows XP does NOT support more hardware than Linux, that is not only false, but its a ridiculous thing to talk about. People probably think that because they get computers of various configs that have Windows Pre-installed, but seriously, the only difference between the two, if you want to talk about hardware support, is that Windows is supported by third party manufacturers almost exclusively(Think Winmodems), and that has more to do with the fact that they have had a monopoly for a LONG time, this is no indication of superiority at all.

I could give an example with my own computer, I build my own, and up until a couple of years ago, I was a Windows ONLY type of guy. My system is Mid to low level, nowadays, an AMD Athalon XP 1.25 GHz, 256 MB of RAM, Nvidia Card 128 MB and an SB Live! card, I could get into the Mobo and networking problems under Windows, but I won't, THAT WAS A PAIN IN THE ASS!!!! OK, so, let's start the steps for installing Windows XP vanilla installation on this system. First step, boot the CD, it boots, takes forever and a half to actually start the installer, first step, partition, so I partition the drive, no big deal. Next step, still in text installer, copy the Windows installation files, it installs them, ok, takes a while(about 35-40 minutes). OK, next step, reboot, then, after being stuck in a screen that at 640X480 with 16 COLORS, I put in the long ass serial number, then set time zone, generic settings, User etc. OK, so reboot yet again, now stuck in Windows, under the standard theme those 16 colors are an eyesore, so I find the Nvidia disk, pop it in, it runs, after a few minutes, I reboot, finally I get millions of colors at 1024x768 resolution. Then I notice I have no sound, so I have to hunt around for SB Live! CD(don't have internet yet, on board ethernet isn't recognized). So, find the disk, install, reboot, now I finally got a usable system, sort of(no network/internet or printer yet).

OK, so that's Windows, took about 2 and a half hours, total to setup, pain in the ass at that. OK, so my next install was Ubuntu Linux, so I download the ISO, burn it(could get CDs for free, but impatient). So, I boot the CD, told it to partition the disk as it saw fit, it did, then it gave the standard questions, asked for user name and password, timezone, etc. then started installing the system, text setup just like Windows. OK, so after about 25 minutes, it finished and asked to reboot, remove the CD, etc. OK, so it restarts, first things first, it goes straight to a login screen, at a full 1280X1024 resolution with MILLIONS of colors. Plus it had a decent startup SOUND. OK, so it starts into Gnome, and I quickly realized something, my printer, network, everything, JUST WORKED, no command line yet, and nothing complicated. I quickly realized I had one small problem, no 3D acceleration, so I went to the package manager, a nice graphical program installer, and found the official Nvidia drivers, clicked on it, then installed it from the online repositories. After a quick stint to the command line, to activiate the Nvidia driver for X windows, I hit CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE, this restarts the windowing system, almost as soon as I hit it, it restarts back at the login screen, I log back in, install Neverwinter Nights, one of my favorite RPGs, and within minutes I'm good to go. Total time for install, a little less than an hour.

Another thing about Windows I want to mention, they are falling behind on technology, compatiblility, and also they are making some serious errors, especially with the next release, the oh so late release of Windows Vista. Hell, all those "wiz bang" features, with the Aero interface are ALREADY present on both MacOSX and Linux desktops. The "new" search tool, which is like Spotlight on Mac and Beagle on Linux, wow, what innovation! :sarcasm: Not to mention DRM, which no one but SOME content makers want, are going to be standard on Windows, and you would have NO option to remove them, even if you wanted to. Activation, which is an annoyance on Windows XP, one reason I'm moving away from it, is going to be even MORE restrictive on Vista, not to mention the half dozen versions of it that are going to confuse customers like you wouldn't believe.

[Karmakaze]

128. And yet you prove yourself wrong!

the only difference between the two, if you want to talk about hardware support, is that Windows is supported by third party manufacturers almost exclusively(Think Winmodems), and that has more to do with the fact that they have had a monopoly for a LONG time, this is no indication of superiority at all.

Which of course means that some hardware is ONLY supported by Windows, proving that Windows supports more hardware than Linux. As I have said elsewhere though, Linux is getting there as support for these Windows only hardware devices is being arranged, often by interested third parties. Still the fact remains, Windows does support more hardware than Linux. Or you could say more hardware supports Windows than any other OS.

As for your Windows setup problems, one thing that supporting such a huge range of hardware does is force the installer to rely on third party drivers. Windows itself has standard drivers to support many standard hardware devices, but manufacturers often dont support the standard themselves. They do it differently (because they can) and release a driver to make it work in Windows. This means that the Windows installer can't install generic drivers for those devices.

But your example can easily be reversed (and is in fact much more common in the reverse) with hardware that Windows supports natively not working under Linux at all, or needing special configuration that is way beyond just "insert driver CD"! For example:

Q7: What X-Windows versions are supported in this driver?
A7: Driver packages are available for XFree86 versions 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, as well as X.Org 6.8.

http://www.ati.com/products/catalyst/linux.html#7

So, to use an ATI card in Linux, I not only need to know I have an ATI card, but I also need to know the version of X-Windows I am running, because the listed supported versions require the use of different driver packages. Many people dont want to know such details. "Insert the disk and click install" is what they want, not "Find out what version of X-Windows you are using, select the package that is compatible for that version, click install"

Worse still is when you need to delve into Linux config files to change settings. That is WAY beyond what the average user wants to do to get their hardware working, and is way beyond what you have to do in Windows. The worst problem you will have in Windows is finding a driver for old legacy hardware. But if you do find a driver, it will work simply by installing the driver. No manual configuration changes, no trying to figure out what version of a Windows component you are using. Just install the driver and go.

However, don't take this to mean I think Linux is an inferior OS. It isn't, and in many ways it is far superior. BUT, at the moment it takes more knowledge to set it up correctly with some hardware configurations than Windows does. In a lot of cases, it is just as simple or even more simple, but in many other cases it is far harder than Windows would be. Thus Windows is more suitable for the general market at the moment, although Linus is very close to catching up.

[da_chimperor]

14. Apple's FAQ on Boot Camp:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303572

In short, It seems most everything will function while running XP except for some of the cool little things that most users can do without. There does seem to be some areas requiring workarounds, but this is a beta. I think we can say good-bye to OnMac.

[eeyore]

15. Great news!

Literally the only reason I have been thinking of buying a PC is to run the Windows version of Quickbooks. Perhaps I can wait and do it this way.

:)

[brooklynite]

75. Actually a related point...

If you use QUICKEN, you'll find that there are far more banks/investment companies etc. that offer data downloads to the WINDOWS version, compared to the MAC version. Apparently Intuit charges them for both features and they didn't want to pay double.

[BlooInBloo]

17. The mac might no longer be just for babies.... wow

[mattclearing]

24. More idiocy.

I work with PC's all the time. There's no contest. PC's are junk by comparison. Whether it's graphics acceleration, media production capabilities, computer aided design, anything PC's can do, Macs can do it better and faster.

This just means that gamers will finally get to play their games with the video card that came with their Mac, rather than shelling out for a high-end video card that woud never be packaged with a standard PC.

I guarantee you Windows will work better on Mac hardware than it ever has before once the drivers are sorted out.

[jim3775]

26. You're wrong, here are some benchmarks

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm

Simple Animation
The first test involves a simple cel-style animation. It consists of a pict file created in Photoshop that was used as a background for tracing paths, which were then animated and filled with another pict file making the pink color of the face. It's a goofy, simple animation, but it shows how well the processors can calculate the paths and render the final composite.

...

This first Photoshop 7 benchmark begins with an image at 640 x 480 (as with all these Photoshop tests). The action sequence went as follows: resize image 200 percent, Gaussian Blur, Craquelure, Emboss, Sharpen More, Despeckle and Ink Outlines.

...
Conclusion
As you see, the dual Athlon is still the fastest PC we've tested, but the single Intel P4 2.53 GHz machine runs a close second, and even beats the dual Athlon on some of the tests. And, as expected, the Mac dual 1GHz G4 could not even come close to keeping up with these two PCs. Even though the P4 machine has only a single processor, it was easy for it to leave the dual-processor Mac far behind.

Edit: I know this is old but I reject the conclusion the a mac will always handle video editing/design work better.

[Karmakaze]

30. I reckon most of the hype regarding graphics...

on the Mac comes from the fact that Photoshop was originally Mac only, and Photoshop is without doubt the best image manipulation app on the market. It had nothing to do with the hardware, just the software.

[mattclearing]

32. They also ship with better graphics cards and higher resolution

monitors for the most part.

[Karmakaze]

35. Are you sure?

In fact the $3000 G5 comes with a ATI 9650. a $1000 Dell comes with a ATI X300. The X300 smokes the 9650.

Oh, and that $3000 G5 doesnt come with a monitor, while the $1000 dell comes with a 19" LCD.

[mattclearing]

41. Yeah, but Dell donates exclusively to Republicans.

And the G5 is being replaced. No one is buying those. You're comparing a $3000 G5 to a $1000 Dell. A better comparison would be a $499 (now defunct) Mac mini to a $399 Dell.

Try the table at this link: http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2005/01/miniapplesandoranges/index.php

[Karmakaze]

68. Wow...

The Mac Mini is comparable to a 399 Dell. And may be even slightly better. So? I bet you I could build a better machine for cheaper myself! See that is where the PC KILLS Mac - I don't HAVE to buy a Dell, I can shop around for the best parts and make my OWN computer.

That is why the IBM PC Im sitting at right now cost the same as that $1000 Dell, but outperforms it by a large margin. In the IBM PC world I have a huge range of choices. I can go for what is cheapest, or what is best, or mix and match to make the machine I want. Plus the upgrade path is nearly limitless. I can start with a $500 machine, and over the course of a few years upgrade it a piece at a time to be as powerful as if I had spent $3000 dollars on that first machine. So as my needs change, so can my computer. I don't have to buy a whole new computer every few years.

Look, I'm not trying to say Macs suck. If they did, no one would use them. All I am saying is they are NOT what Apple and its fans make them out to be. They are an alternative, but not necessarily the BEST alternative. For some needs they are better, for others they are worse. For me, what it comes down to is support. Far more software and hardware vendors support the IBM PC because it is an open standard, and has a far greater user base. That means more options of software and hardware, and it also means I don't need to worry about things like this Mac announcement.

There is no Mac software that I can't get an equivalent PC application for. The reverse, however, doesnt hold, which is why Apple is slowly making their computer compatible with the IBM PC. First it was the processor, now the OS. Before long, Apple will probably be just another brand of IBM PC manufacturer. Lets just hope they don't drop their OS, because the fact that Linux and OSX exist is what drives MS to make their software better. Choice is good. If Apple does indeed make their OS IBM Compatible, I can gaurantee many IBM PC users will switch. I know I would give it a go. But hardware wise... Well let's just say I see no reason to change.

[MrPrax]

69. Very good point...

MAC's size of the market reflects the cost of a MAC and at times I look over these 'design chic' appliances and sorta think that what is being sold is NOT really a computer, some creepy 'concept' of sheen over functionality.

Rather strange if you think about it, since computers are really only big calculators and are by definition, functional. Why exactly this group of consumers would even consider 'aesthetics' as a consideration in a computer purchase is simply 'mac' marketing; irrelevent.

Pound for pound you get a whole lot of computer with a PC--it's been like that for years; more power, more OSs, more compatibility, more software choice, more technical help, more expandibility, etc etc...

[mattclearing]

31. As far as video capture/editing goes, which I probably should have

specified, I haven't seen anything on PC that works nearly as well. You are right though, that may be due to software and not processor speed.

[Karmakaze]

36. Ok, I can give the Mac video capture/editing....

Of course, its not like we all sit around capturing and editting videos, is it :)

[BlooInBloo]

39. It's easy....

If you wanna do artsy-cartoony-kidstuff, use a mac. If you wanna do anything else - scientific (matlab, etc), serious dev, or game, get a pc.

[no name no slogan]

45. If you REALLY do scientific/engineering stuff, you use UNIX

NOT a Windows OS. If you're doing heavy-duty science or engineering, you're probably running a Solaris, HP-UX or IBM workstation-- or you're running Linux on Intel-based hardware. Windows is for accountants and secretaries.

[mattclearing]

48. LOL. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

50. Truce?

Client-server baby!

lol

And for medium-sized stuff, matlab on windoze is just fine.

[no name no slogan]

80. If you can't code it in Assembler, it ain't worth coding

Agree with you on the medium stuff. Plus, if you've ever had to support a non-computer-person on ANY flavor of Unix, you deserve a medal :patriot:

[benburch]

52. OSX is Unix.

Well, it is BSD, which is close enough. I run amazing amounts of Unix/Linux stuff on my eMac here.

[no name no slogan]

82. Lots of old NEXTStep code in there, too, I hear

BSD is da shit. I would use it FT if work didn't require me to run Windows.

But don't get me started on vast superiority of Amigas :hide:

[mattclearing]

47. artsy-cartoony-kidstuff?

Are you insane? 90% of the movies you've seen have been edited on a Mac, and most of the music you've heard in the last twenty years has been mixed on one.

You can't be serious.

[BlooInBloo]

51. That's the artsy-cartoony-kidsstuff I was referring to!

Thanks for catching on!

[mattclearing]

55. What did you have in mind?

Are you calculating the question to the ultimate answer?

[BlooInBloo]

57. mmmmmmm........ just you wait!

You laugh at me now... but I'll show you! mwahahahaha!!!

[asthmaticeog]

63. Gaming isn't kidstuff?

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

65. Given that, it's amazing gaming on a mac sucks...

Oh I forgot - idiotic one button mouse, and nobody programs for mac anyway, cuz no one owns a mac...

I take that back - it's not amazing that gaming on the mac sucks.

[jim3775]

84. A recent study says that adults spend more time playing games...

than kids.

link

[mattclearing]

44. Um, yeah, I do.

I also record music. PC's are really unwieldy for either of them.

[jmowreader]

106. A 2500MHz PC runs faster than a 1000MHz Mac? Whoda thunk it?

And whoever designed the fucking Windows XP PostScript printer driver needs to be hung by the genitals. It takes an act of God to convince that piece of shit to talk to a networked printer.

The Mac PostScript driver is a different story: from Day One, that driver has assumed your LaserWriter is on a LAN.

[da_chimperor]

113. You're wrong, XP runs faster on Macs (laptops at least). Link to prove it:

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/03/22/mac_fastest_core_duo_laptop/

And bear in mind this is using OnMac, not Boot Camp. Remember that new Macs aren't using PowerPC processors any more.

[Karmakaze]

28. You do realise...

that the graphics hardware on the Mac is BEHIND the PC sont you?

Nvidia Corp. has taken the wraps off its latest high-end mainstream graphics chip, the GeForce 7800 GTX. Although Nvidia’s introduction centers on the lucrative PC game market, Nvidia’s graphics hardware is also Mac-compatible, so this announcement may give Mac users an insight as to what’s to come on their platform soon.

<snip>

One wild card for Mac users is the 7800 GTX’s reliance on an expansion technology called PCI Express. This interface technology has gained much traction in the PC space over the past year, but it’s still yet to debut on the Macintosh — Power Mac models are expandable using AGP-based video card sockets and PCI-X expansion card ports.

Nvidia is also now leveraging a technology called Scalable Link Interface (SLI), that allows two PCI Express-based graphics cards to work in tandem to produce images faster. It’s unlikely that SLI will be supported on the Mac until Apple makes the move to PCI Express, and Apple has given no indication when it will do so.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/23/nvidia/index.php

My nVidia 6800GT's will smoke the Power Mac G5 Dual 2.7GHz framerate on Unreal Tournament 2004, especially if I use both of them in SLI mode. Oh and all up it cost less than half the price of that Power Mac :)

Still Im not saying the G5 is slow - Im sure it would smoke my machine on many other tasks, especially as it is dual processor. But then again for the price of that G5 I could build a PC that would compete handily!

[mattclearing]

29. What I said was that Mac users will get standard what PC users

generally have to shell out extra for. How many PC's ship with an NVidia GEForce 7800 GTX?

[Karmakaze]

33. Quite a few actually

And no, Mac users dont get as standard what PC have to shell out extra for. The standard graphics on a $3000 G5 is ATI Radeon 9650. On a $1000 Dell you get ATI Radeon X300 SE. On a $3500 Dell you get dual 7800GTX's.

As SINGLE 7800GTX would smoke a 9650 so badly as to be an embarrasment in the gaming world, and Even an X300 would make the 9650 look lame.

[Touchdown]

71. "Unreal Tournament 2004" I knew it had to be something.

A gameboy fanboy, who can't help but shit on anybody else's freedom of choice. Keep your toy. I'll take a computer I can charge billable hours on.

When will you techno-weenies get it? Some of us can't be bothered to "build PCs". We have sex lives.:eyes:
I need to know how to drive a car. I do NOT need to know how to replace a manifold.

[Karmakaze]

81. Actually, Ive never played it...

I only mentioned it because MacWorld used it as a benchmark for the 3D hardware in the G5, and its results were... lets just say mediocre.

"When will you techno-weenies get it? Some of us can't be bothered to "build PCs". We have sex lives."

Thats why Dell is around :P

[jim3775]

88. "Thats why Dell is around" -And about 1000 other companies that

build custom PC's.

I'm just saying this to head off the "dell gives 99% to the republicans" argument.

[Karmakaze]

89. Good point!

In fact there is a whole industry built around the "I don't have the time/knowledge to build it myself" people. In fact anyone can get into it and become a computer manufacturer! Now show me the owner/operater Apple-Compatible market...

[benburch]

102. Union Built PCs...

http://www.unionbuiltpc.com/home.php

[Touchdown]

90. That's also why Pontiac and Nabisco are around.

You can build your own cars and bake your own low salt Triscuits too. If you are an obsessive. :P C'mon now!

I buy Apples, so Dell would be a non-issue, even if I used Windows. Since Windows is so buggy and prone to crashing, I would have to learn how they work, so I could be like you...working with my computer, instead of working on it.

[Karmakaze]

103. Buggy and prone to crashing?

Hmm my XP box hasnt crashed in months - hell I can't remember the last time it crashed. Still considering the flexibility, a reboot every now and then is no biggy.

[Touchdown]

109. Way to miss the point.

I don't want to build computers. I like buying Apples, because they last, and I'm a photographer...Aperture (which windows doesn't have) is coming in very handy. I have other things to be interested in than putting together a bunch of ckt boards, which I do all day at Ma Bell. Got a problem with that?

[Karmakaze]

110. Nope...

I have no problem with you wanting to use an Apple. But then again I never criticised an Apple once. You on the other hand talk of not wanting to build computers (which I have covered already by pointing out that is why Dell exists) and saying that Windows is buggy and crashes, which is true, but maybe not to the extent you make it out to be.

What I do have a problem with is your hostility. I never said anything bad about Apple, or criticised you for wanting to use them, yet you react like I did simply because I defended Windows and the IBM PC. Should that be the Apple slogan? "It's not Windows!"

Look I could care less what you choose to use. I don't care that there are Apple PC's out there, it just doesn't bother me. Yet that doesnt seem to be true of Apple people. Post something about a new Windows virus, and I gaurantee you one of the first posts will be "Get a Mac!"

Why so defensive?

[Touchdown]

111. Defensive? Try condescending then you'll have me.

Maybe true that you never attacked Apples, but you had plenty of sneers for Apple users. That's MUCH more personal than a critique of a company's products. ...besides, you were coming off like a fanboy, as if the mere posting of this news is tantamount to betrayal of your favorite team, and would cause a rupture in the space/time continuum.

"So there's no reason to buy an Apple anymore." along with a few more jabs and the obligatory :rofl: ...

"I never said anything bad about Apple, or criticized you for wanting to use them..."

How very Hannityesque of you.

"I could care less what you use."

Then why post in here? I could care less about debating abortion, so as a male I stay out of it.

[Karmakaze]

119. Hmmm

Well, in regards to Apple users in general, I wouldnt say sneers, maybe a little jab or two, but in terms of Apple users who are constantly harping on about how Apple is so much better than IBM PC/Windows definately a few sneers, and well deserved ones I think.

They criticise the IBM PC, but the Apple Mac is slowly becoming an IBM PC. They criticise Win XP, but cheer when their hardware is capable of running it. I guess you can see why I might be a little disdainful. So if you have never participated in the "Windows Sucks" threads then I apologise if I offended you.

But if you even ONCE had a little poke at Windows or IBM PC, then turnabout is fair play, so :p

[Touchdown]

123. Thank you for conceding.

Honesty is liberating, isn't it?:evilgrin:

[Karmakaze]

124. Conceding??? Umm ok??

Im not sure exactly what Im conceding, but if that floats your boat, you're welcome! :)

[Touchdown]

127. I know.

:D

[da_chimperor]

115. Yeah, but hard-core gamers have never bought Macs. n/t

[Karmakaze]

120. I wonder why?

:)

[da_chimperor]

121. You have to wait 6 months at the least for a game to be ported n/t

[madokie]

18. Is it still going to be a mac. plug it in turn it on simplicity?

[jim3775]

19. Great, now they just need to offer 64 bit support and they will finally

match the features of a real PC.

Edit: Another thing to remember is that Apple only released this after their users figured out how to get around the new intel mac's new booting process. If nobody figured it out I wonder if Apple would have released this.

Edit: Here is another funny thing, Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/mac/) and Apple seem to be pretty friendly toward each other. Maybe Dvorak's prediction that Apple will switch to a modded version of Windows Vista isn't so silly after all.

[Karmakaze]

23. Did you see the list of drivers Boot Camp installs?

Half that hardware is what I have in my PC! Same brand of ethernet, I could have had the smae video, but I went for the SLI nVidia instead, but looking at the list did NOT make me think "Mac" :)

Apple has basically rebuilt the IBM PC with a non-compatible bios. Same hardware just not directly compatible. Gotta laugh really. :)

[benburch]

49. Why laugh?

They seem to be winning the game.

[Karmakaze]

83. Winning the game?

How so?

[benburch]

95. Here is how.

1. They have a loyal base. Once you try Mac you seldom go back.

2. They are convincing people to switch.

3. By making the Intel move, they leverage Microsoft's own success against them by gaining access to commodity hardware for low end machines and cutting edge processors on the high end.

4. By having the option of running XP, they will convince more people to switch. Perhaps those people will never buy and install XP on that machine, but having the option of going back without making the new Mac hardware useless makes the switch much less risky.

5. They have a much better security design that Microsoft ever will, and security is becoming the key issue in online computing.

I believe that Microsoft will exit the OS business by the end of the decade. Apple will have eaten their lunch.

[jim3775]

99. My reply...

1. They have a loyal base. Once you try Mac you seldom go back.

Yes it's almost a cult like following...

2. They are convincing people to switch.

I suppose they are but that is still a small portion of the computer market, even if they doubled their market share it would still be a small fraction.

3. By making the Intel move, they leverage Microsoft's own success against them by gaining access to commodity hardware for low end machines and cutting edge processors on the high end.

Not really, microsoft is not a hardware company, this move just introduces a new user base to sell their product too. Apple is a hardware company, this move will hurt dell (etc.) more than microsoft.

4. By having the option of running XP, they will convince more people to switch. Perhaps those people will never buy and install XP on that machine, but having the option of going back without making the new Mac hardware useless makes the switch much less risky.

I don't see this happening, the amount of people who will switch from windows only because they can run windows on a mac seems slim to none. It is too easy to walk into best buy and purchase a $400 computer with windows pre-installed, rather than buy a mac, install bootcamp, buy a windows license and install windows.

5. They have a much better security design that Microsoft ever will, and security is becoming the key issue in online computing.

Yes and no. Yes they have a better security design, but microsoft has done good work on vista. Have you tried vista yet? Don't say microsoft will "never have better security" until you do.

OSX has released security patches recently, linux OS's and server software have tons of security vulnerabilities as does firefox. You are kidding yourself if you think microsoft is to blame for all the security problems in today's computing world.

I believe that Microsoft will exit the OS business by the end of the decade. Apple will have eaten their lunch.

You must be smoking some great weed. My prediction, Apple will be hit with major lawsuits (they have two going on right now plus legislative action in France) because of their software bundling/proprietary DRM practices. They will be in some major hot water with the EU and Korea.

[Karmakaze]

107. Hmmm

1. They have a loyal base. Once you try Mac you seldom go back.

2. They are convincing people to switch.

I seem to remember reading some stats recently saying that Apples share of the desktop market has gone DOWN, not up. Still I suppose that could just be because most new users go for IBM PC.

3. By making the Intel move, they leverage Microsoft's own success against them by gaining access to commodity hardware for low end machines and cutting edge processors on the high end.

What, you mean the commodity hardware and cutting edge processors that MS and IBM PC's have always had access to?

4. By having the option of running XP, they will convince more people to switch. Perhaps those people will never buy and install XP on that machine, but having the option of going back without making the new Mac hardware useless makes the switch much less risky.

I dunno, seems to me that "You can run XP on it too!" would not be the best selling point of a Mac. I mean I can run XP on ANY IBM PC already, so why switch?

5. They have a much better security design that Microsoft ever will, and security is becoming the key issue in online computing.

Well I wouldnt say "ever", even MS learns eventually, but if that was the major issue, then Linux is already on the IBM PC. Best of both worlds.

I believe that Microsoft will exit the OS business by the end of the decade. Apple will have eaten their lunch.

Dreams are free! I believe MS will own the desktop for many years yet, and may eventually become an equal competitor, but the market is far too lucrative for them to ever back out of it. Besides, do you really think swapping one monopoly for another is such a great deal for the consumer?

[jim3775]

85. 5% market share is winning?

Apple is doing very very well (because of the ipod), but they aren't the winners.

[benburch]

92. More than a 5% share.

At least that is what my web server stats tell me;



About 15%.

And growing monthly, too.

[jim3775]

100. Excuse me if i don't think you web server stats are an accurate indicator

of market trends. This is like determining web site popularity using the alexa rankings.

[jim3775]

101. Here are the numbers, it's worse than I thought.

This is from Q4 2004, I am still looking for 2005 numbers.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/03/20/marketshare/index.php
Dell 34.68%
HP 20.86%
Gateway 7.70%
IBM 3.47%
Apple 2.88%

Edit: I found the 2005 numbers.

Market share in 2005 was 2.2 percent from Gartner and 2.3 percent from IDC. According to Gartner, Apple's market share peaked at 15.8 percent in 1980 -- four years before the Mac was introduced.

link

[benburch]

104. My numbers show me what is actually in use and surfing the net.

The replacement rate for Macs is MUCH lower than for PCs.

[jim3775]

105. You are in no position to determine the total market share based on...

your server stats. Maybe google or yahoo could provide an accurate picture, but whiterosesociety.org can not.

The numbers I posted are from reputable market research companies, the first set was even published on macworld.com.

[Karmakaze]

108. You're joking right?

Surely you must be joking? No one could seriously take ANY webserver stats as real indicator of actual market share, surely.

[Rob H.]

74. Dvorak doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground wrt Apple

The guy's been dead wrong on so many of his predictions about their future and whether _insert product here_ will succeed that I'm surprised anyone takes him seriously about anything anymore. He thought the original iMac and iBook wouldn't sell and when the iPod was released he pooh-poohed the idea that anyone would want to carry that much of their music around with them. He also said Apple would never release a video iPod, and he was way off on that one, too.

The guy knows precisely jack shit about Apple--he's just click pimping, imho.

[jim3775]

86. I actually agree with his ipod comments

Think about it, what percentage of the average ipod user's hard drives are in use? 5%-10%? Not everybody has a 30GB music collection, even Apple realized this. That's why they released the ipod shuffle.

[Rob H.]

98. True, a lot of people have little use for a 30GB music player

and I know I'm not about to rush out and buy one just yet, but Dvorak was saying that about the first-generation iPod, which was 5GB. (I have a 4GB Nano and it's full of music, so now I do kinda wish I'd bought a higher-capacity iPod. Oh, well--it helps me keep rotating my music on the Nano, at least. :) )

[Touchdown]

112. There's more to an iPod than just music collections.

It can store 15 meg RAW files from my Nikon camera. at 10 mp, That's 60 shots a gig. At $300 for a 40gig iPod, the per gig savings in an Ipod beats the hell out of $90 per gig with CF cards, and the firewire port downloads those shots to my computer 5 times faster than a PC card adapter. The typical wedding nets about 300-500 pictures. That's a LOT of CF cards ...and I still get to carry around my music. :D

Drawback? Nikon so far is still USB but it has a 20 shot RAW buffer in it, and my camera is tethered by an iPod cord.

[n2doc]

27. more commentary

http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macword/2006/04/bootcamp/index.php

Apple gives its blessing to Windows on Macs
By Jason Snell

Last month, when a few enterprising hackers won a contest by enabling Windows booting on Intel-based Macs, one of the first comments I read in our forums was: “How long until Apple cripples this hack with a system software update?”


Turns out, Apple could’ve won that $13,854 if it had just released Boot Camp a month earlier. Instead of crippling a hack, Apple has released a legitimate version that does what the hack did — and in true Apple fashion, a whole lot more.


Unlike the winning hack, which required some seriously geeky tricks, Boot Camp walks you through the process: it dynamically resizes your startup disk’s partitions to create a new one for XP (no reformatting required), automatically burns you a CD full of Windows drivers for Intel-based Mac hardware, and then reboots you into Windows to start the installation procedure.


Apple’s integrated the concept of booting into Windows into the Startup Disk preference pane: Windows volumes now appear in the list of bootable volumes. And Boot Camp even installs an Apple-written Windows utility that lets you set the default startup disk when you’re running Windows, too. You can even hold down the Option key when you start up the Mac, and as always, you’ll be provided with a list of bootable volumes — but now your Windows volume will appear in the list there, too.

[Dr. Jones]

34. They've had a program that can run Windows XP on the Mac for a long time!

It's called Virtual PC for the Mac. It's nothing new...hmph.

MacMall.com has this product.

[BlooInBloo]

38. Ah yes. Virtual Slow Unstable Joke

Forgot bout that one...

[benburch]

46. I use the freeware Bochs emulator for this.

Yes, it is slow, but all I do is run my old DOS games on it, especially "Aces of The Deep".

And I have DR-DOS so I don't have to pay Microsloth a red cent for it.

[BlooInBloo]

53. Does it play unreal tournament?

Or are you pretty much stuck with wall st raider?

lol

[benburch]

56. Not an Unreal player, so I don't know!

:)

[BlooInBloo]

58. Ah well. Wall St Raider rules anyways...

Finally found an old copy of simearth too - what an awewsome program - lol

[benburch]

60. I loved SimEarth!

SimAnt too!

[BlooInBloo]

64. Never did simant - i love modeling/simulation progs generally....

Wonder if anyone's tried to update simearth?

hmm... cya!

lol

[benburch]

70. I still run it here sometimes.

Works fine in the "Classic" environment on OSX.

When the Intel Macs come out I will have to run MacOS 8 in the Basilisk II emulator to run my old 68K Mac software, though as fast as those machines are, this should be about as fast as any 68K Mac ever was!

[benburch]

59. Just checked...

There is a MacOS version of that software, so you don't need to use an emulator at all.

[BlooInBloo]

67. Yah I know.

They have it *now* - lol

[MrPrax]

78. or Pengapop!

That's my mom's fav on her iMac, when she's not editing video, streaming soundtracks and breaking the limits of the human imagination... :eyes:

[Sgent]

66. This is the first step

in building a Virtual Machine that will work on upcoming Intel chips -- when you are able to run a virtual machine inside OS X, you will have achieved the ultimate in dual (or triple inc Linux) OS systems -- w/o requiring a reboot.

[jim3775]

94. What incentive is there for developers to make mac-compatible...

versions of their software now that users can just dual boot windows?

This is a good point some people are making on digg.com.

[Touchdown]

96. Class vs. utility.

Mac aps (Especially Apple's) are just beauties to work on.

[benburch]

97. Excellent Question.

The answer is that most people will not want to do this. This capability, however, makes it far more likely for them to buy a new MacBook because they know that they can always go back if they do not like the MacOS X system. Most who do, however, will love OSX, and will never purchase an XP license for their machines.

And that is the other bar to entry; You gotta own an XP license.

[Beelzebud]

114. Now if only they would let us try out OSX on a PC.........

[Der Blaue Engel]

126. Why would I want to put that stink on my Mac?

Phooey.