No XP on intel Macs?

[scooter]

Perhaps they might get Longhorn to work on Macbooks in the future!

uhh..........don't you mean vista? :teen:

 

[mactopsuit]

Oh yeah whoops, Windows Vista...code name Longhorn..

 

[dan828]

Well, people haven't had any luck with the current betas of Vista, but I don't think EFI is supported yet. I'm sure MS has some x86 Macs already and is working to make it a reality. The 64-bit versions of XP support EFI, but since the Core-Duo is 32 bit, it doesn't do any good.

 

[Wintermute]

Heh it'll be called Macdows and M$ will charge for a whole "new" OS.

 

[TobyDurkin]

Scream all you want, but, I'd rather see OSX working on PCs. I have 5 Windows machines, mostly built from scratch. I'd love to be able to switch the family over to Tiger.....unfortunately the cost of new computers is out of the question. I love my iBook, I have been a serious Mac convert since I got it for Christmas.

Yeah I'd go with that, what annoys me is that Apple wont sell a version of OS X 10.4.4 to run on PC's. To me it seems like a lost oppertunity to challenge Microsoft in the software stakes.

I'd rather have OS X 10.4.4 running on this machine than Microsoft Windblows XP any day of the week.

I have an AMD Athlon 64 bit 3200+ pc which would fly if it could run OS X, MS are dragging their feet over 64 bit systems and have been ever since XP 64 was announced. I remain sceptical about Windblows Vista as XP was meant to be it and patently isn't. :radioacti

 

[Discerptor]

Yeah I'd go with that, what annoys me is that Apple wont sell a version of OS X 10.4.4 to run on PC's. To me it seems like a lost oppertunity to challenge Microsoft in the software stakes.

I'd rather have OS X 10.4.4 running on this machine than Microsoft Windblows XP any day of the week.

I have an AMD Athlon 64 bit 3200+ pc which would fly if it could run OS X, MS are dragging their feet over 64 bit systems and have been ever since XP 64 was announced. I remain sceptical about Windblows Vista as XP was meant to be it and patently isn't. :radioacti

The problem is that Apple wants to actually stay in the black, and it makes the vast majority of its profits off hardware sales. To successfully switch to a more software-centric model would take a whole lot of time and effort that may or may not be worth it in the long run.

 

[Wintermute]

Time and effort? They built EFI INTO OS X for the MBP or do the old PowerPC Macs use EFI as well? Is my ignorance showing?

 

[Kokopelli]

Time and effort? They built EFI INTO OS X for the MBP or do the old PowerPC Macs use EFI as well? Is my ignorance showing?

No but you are suffering from TLA overload. The loss of profit is from making a marginal profit of an OS X license versus making a larger profit off of a Mac sale. The time and effort is in shifting from a hardware centric company who makes software that supports it to a software company who sells compatible hardware. Those are two very different business models. Apple is the whole package or nothing at all, start selling software for beige boxes and the business changes quite a bit.

When you start selling OS X for beige boxes support goes up. Even if they did only supported Apple hardware there would be a large # of customers who would try anyway. "But my system has been working fine, so it has nothing to do with the hardware." kinda calls.

Then there are the lost hardware sales. Does the increased # of software sales offset the loss from hardware? if so how much is the extra support infrastructure you are going to need? Can the hardware side survive a transition where they are an option not a requirement?

Put simply, it is not a simple question of "Why doesn't Apple just sell OS X for any hardware we want to install it on?"

 

[mcsenerd]

The greatest motivator in the entire world is fear.

We fear most that which we do not know...

That is why Apple hasn't opened up OS X...nuf said.

 

[sbatson]

Apple has plans for Mac users to be able to run OSX, Windows and Linux simultaneously in the future. These would not be dual boot systems as much as multi-boot systems, being able to run all 3 OSs at once with the ability to switch between them without a reboot. As such, Vista and Linux will eventually run just fin on Macs.

Now this would be cool as long as I could completely protect the Mac OS and Linux from Windows with partitions or something. I Don't know why someone would want to buy a Mac and put Windows on it when PCs can be had cheaper. But, if I can run all my stuff on one system, that would be awesome!

I have to say, I absolutely LOVE my new Intel Based iMAC. The screen is incredible and I expect it to be a great asset in my digital photography work which is one of the reasons I bought it.

Steve

 

[TobyDurkin]

The problem is that Apple wants to actually stay in the black, and it makes the vast majority of its profits off hardware sales. To successfully switch to a more software-centric model would take a whole lot of time and effort that may or may not be worth it in the long run.

It's a shame! What I hate is the fact that PC users don't have much of choice in operating systems, all we've got is MS Windblows or Linux and having looked at the screenshots of Linux it doesn't look any better than Windblows, whereas OS X looks the business.

 

[djmitch]

I miss Windows for only one reason: not being able to play my favorite PC games anymore. That's why I wanted XP or Vista to be able to run on Mactels. So for now, instead of being able to simply waste my precious time on those games, I'm learning things like GarageBand and iMovie and being more productive than I've EVER been in a computing environment. Hmmm ... maybe Windows on a Mac wouldn't be the best of both worlds after all!

 

[to_tough_to_die]

I miss Windows for only one reason: not being able to play my favorite PC games anymore. That's why I wanted XP or Vista to be able to run on Mactels. So for now, instead of being able to simply waste my precious time on those games, I'm learning things like GarageBand and iMovie and being more productive than I've EVER been in a computing environment. Hmmm ... maybe Windows on a Mac wouldn't be the best of both worlds after all!

That was my main worry to... now I do so much work in iMovie/ Final Cut that if there games for the Mac, I wouldn't know about them.

 

[scooter]

i, on the other hand, will definately miss the games from my pc; especially after seeing the new lucas game Empire at War. neye:

my pc had problems but oh did it play the games well!! :spook:

 

[Amen-Moses]

It's a shame! What I hate is the fact that PC users don't have much of choice in operating systems, all we've got is MS Windblows or Linux and having looked at the screenshots of Linux it doesn't look any better than Windblows, whereas OS X looks the business.

I'm currently running Ubuntu on my iBook and it is superb apart from the lack of a driver for the wireless chipset. Of all the Linux distros I've tried it is by far the best and with the addition of a simple app can run native Mac apps as well.

Amen-Moses

 

[XFce]

The reason why I bought a Core duo is because I hate Micro$oft windows with a bloody passion. If Apples makes Intel Macs compatible with win XP I’ll sell my duo and buy a computer that has BSD pre installed on the hard drive.

 

[PowerBookG4]

The reason why I bought a Core duo is because I hate Micro$oft windows with a bloody passion. If Apples makes Intel Macs compatible with win XP I’ll sell my duo and buy a computer that has BSD pre installed on the hard drive.

They will make it compatible, (so the rumor is) but they will not sell the imac or any mac for that matter with windows on it. OSX will be the main operating system, but you will have the ability to put windows on it instead of installing VPC for those applications that you need to have that are not avaiable on the mac os. This is the point of the making windows compatible on mac hardware.. not to replace osx.

 

[rukind2]

why would someone want to use MS instead of an Apple OS? Crazy for all the known reasons. Use Virtual PC to run your winblows programs (I do) and reap the benefit without the crap that MS OS serves up problem-wise.

 

[sbatson]

The reason why I bought a Core duo is because I hate Micro$oft windows with a bloody passion. If Apples makes Intel Macs compatible with win XP I’ll sell my duo and buy a computer that has BSD pre installed on the hard drive.

Why on earth do you care what it CAN run or what other people run on it? I don't see any chance that Apple would ever sell their Macs with M$ Windows on them. I'm a long time windows/pc user and just got a an Intel Based iMac and I love it! I agree about keeping windows off of it, I kept my PC for that. But why on earth sell it because it can do something you don't like. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to load windows on it. That's like saying, well I'm getting rid of all of the knives in the kitchen because they can do bad things like hurt or kill people.

 

[sbatson]

why would someone want to use MS instead of an Apple OS? Crazy for all the known reasons. Use Virtual PC to run your winblows programs (I do) and reap the benefit without the crap that MS OS serves up problem-wise.

The reason would be that Virtual PC is going to take unacceptable performance hits on some applications and games. As I've mentioned in my previous post, I've kept a PC around for running Windows Apps.

However, I don't treasure the idea of putting windows on my Mac either. I think Virtual PC would be good for the things that will run with acceptable performance but a dedicated PC for windows solves the problems nicely. Personally, I've never liked the dual boot option for anything other than a lab or test setup. I'd rather have the ability to use my iMac Keyboard, mouse and display with some type of switch to be able to switch between machines. May have to get a Mac Mini for stuff like that since it uses external monitor.

I have been using Microsoft's Remote Desktop to connect to my PC, it works ok, but the problem with it, is that it's like 4 years old and the graphics and resolution suck. Text based and light graphics stuff works ok, but it's not impressive by any means. A major update to Remote Desktop could be a nice option for those that have a PC and a network setup.