Intel-Based Macs May Run Windows

[ragingfish]

Quote, originally posted by PC World »Intel-Based Macs May Run WindowsBut Apple says it will stop the Mac OS from running on non-Apple machines.Narasu RebbapragadaFrom the August 2005 issue of PC World magazinePosted Wednesday, June 22, 2005Apple's decision to abandon IBM PowerPC chips in favor of processors from Intel raises the possibility of new, affordable Apple computers that could boot both Mac OS X and Windows."Apple will not do anything to prevent it," says Michael Gartenberg, vice president and research director with Jupiter Research in New York. (Today, Macs can run Windows only on a sluggish x86 emulator called Virtual PC.)At the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference in June, CEO Steve Jobs said that the first Macs with Intel processors would appear next year, with the migration to Intel expected to be mostly complete by the end of 2007. Apple did not say which Intel CPUs it planned to use or where they would appear first. But given that Mac OS X is a 64-bit operating system and Intel hasn't yet announced a 64-bit mobile chip, Apple will probably make desktops such as the IMac and the Mac Mini the first recipients of Intel architecture, says Shane Rau, PC chip analyst for the research firm IDC.Mac OS on MacsIf you're hoping to load Mac OS X on an existing Windows PC, though, you'll be disappointed. Apple has made it clear that the Mac OS will install only on Mac hardware. Likewise, if you've been hoping that the switch to common hardware will mean more software developed for both Windows and Mac computers, you are in for a letdown. Developers say that they won't be able to develop Mac and PC applications simultaneously, because the coding languages are still vastly different. While Mac lovers who have to run the occasional Windows application may rejoice at being able to run native Windows, the migration to Intel may be rocky for developers and users of today's Mac apps.Developers will have to recompile programs written for PowerPC Macs, and until the new versions appear, longtime Mac fans who buy a new Intel-based Mac will have to run their legacy apps with an emulation technology called Rosetta (named after the famous stone used to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs). Rosetta will run code created for PowerPC on Intel's chips at a pace that Jobs described in a presentation slide as "fast (enough)." In a demo of the technology, however, Adobe Photoshop took a fair amount of time to launch on a prototype Intel-based Mac.Why the switch? Rau says that Intel can assure Apple a steady supply of chips for all of its products--including desktops, servers, and a range of notebooks. "And not just CPUs, but chip sets, Wi-Fi, and so on," Rau says. In contrast, IBM had been unable to meet Apple's demand for desktop chips, and neither IBM nor Freescale (another Apple chip supplier) had a comprehensive road map similar to Intel's. Further, IBM couldn't solve the PowerPC CPU's heat problems in order to create a PowerBook G5 notebook, and it couldn't help Jobs deliver a promised 3-GHz Power Mac.Rau says that the change to Intel should help to lower the prices for Macs. That, along with the prospect of a dual-boot Windows/Mac system, could help increase Apple's PC market share--which, according to IDC, currently hovers at about 3 percent.However, not all observers believe that abandoning IBM in favor of Intel is a smart decision for Apple. "Intel is not the 'de-facto leader in processor design' that it was a few years ago; in the recent past Intel has been out-innovated by both AMD (with a better approach to 64-bit computing) and IBM (with a better long-term strategy around multicore chips)," wrote Ovum Ltd. research director Gary Barnett in an e-mail message.Narasu Rebbapragada is a PC World associate editor. PC World Senior Editor Yardena Arar and Tom Krazit of IDG News Service contributed to this story.Illustration by: Joe ZeffSource: http://www.pcworld.com/news/ar...0.aspRagingCommentary: Now THIS should be interesting! A Mac that could dual-boot Windows or MacOS would definitely make me more seriously consider "the switch." The ability to change to Mac and not lose the ability to run my windows-only apps would be very appealing. Plus, the price drop would also be a big factor in my consideration.

[drunkenmaxx]

to quote the jack in the box commercial "we could rule the world"

[DaddyVibeMI]

Quote, originally posted by drunkenvibe »to quote the jack in the box commercial "we could rule the world"LOL, indeed!!!

[ColonelPanic]

*cleaning the vomit off of my desk*That's just nasty.. But hey, the Macs will look nice while crashing, spewing forth viruses, and just generally being insecure and unreliable, thanks to M$!!! Sorry folks, but taking the best designed 'puters on the planet and infecting them with Windows should be a crime. The Macintosh platform totally doesn't deserve having to run a M$ OS, but that's just MHO. All that hard work Apple put into design goes down the toilet, I think.

[millster]

And the zealots scream! This came about a while back and I've done a lot of research on it.Given my line of work, I need to have a machine that runs Windows. I do a lot of programming in Visual Basic, tech work on Windows, and work in a student management package that only runs on Windows.That said, I'm a Mac user and would love nothing more than to sit behind a slick, smooth, simple Mac screen and be able to do whatever I need to do in my day. Be that programming in Windows or just general work in Mac OS. It's hard to deny that Apple hardware is miles ahead of anything a PC manufacturer has released from a standpoint of elegant and simple machines. If you have a need for massive expandability (I have a video production machine that's a large PC tower and needs to be to hold my drive array) they have their purpose. I fail to see the negative of this change.As for your comments, Colonel. A Mac does not NEED to run Windows. A lot of people will use a computer with exactly what it has on it. That's how Windows got it's lead. The hardware was cheap and Windows was plentiful. The major issue Apple has had in it's way has been the price of the hardware and the lack of development for the platform. The lack of development has been alleviated to some degree but the cost is still there. Hopefully this change will bring about a new era for Apple. The Windows compatibility, like it or not, is a major plus to those of us who simply have no choice.

[binary]

Nah, the motherboard may have an intel chip - but I would bet Apple is going to design a motherboard that will not be Windows friendly - likewise the version of OS-X released to the public most likely will not run on PC's you and I have.Apple couldn't afford to loose the hardware sales and become a purely software company - they just couldn't do it.Besides, Apple is one of the few computer inovators out there. Dell spends less than 1% on R&D - so everyone is just trying to keep costs down. Apple sets the next standard for just about everything - flat screens, USB, wireless, OS, etc etc.Even die hard Mac haters would loose the benefits of having Apple around.

[Kari]

Quote, originally posted by binary »Nah, the motherboard may have an intel chip - but I would bet Apple is going to design a motherboard that will not be Windows friendly Apple's logic boards are pretty notorious for being strange setups, so I vote yes on this one...

[millster]

Appple has already publicly stated that they will not stop Windows from running on the Macs. Why would they?They have also stated, however that OS X will not be able to be run on a non-Apple system. To me, this only makes sense. It takes away from OS X's appeal. That is that it was written to a closed architecture and therefore has had all of it's drivers optimized to be perfectly stable. One has to wonder if Microsoft won't take advantage of this and release a special version of Windows optimized to run on Apple hardware.

[Kari]

Doesn't the idea of running Windows on a Mac take away from the appeal of the Mac itself for many people though? Many recent switchers did so because they were tired of the constant viruses and major security issues that are exploited on Windows because it's so widely used, and I'd venture to say it's a major benefit for many people who currently choose to spend the extra money on a Mac instead of buying a cheap PC. So why would they want to give that up and put Windows on a Mac? The people who would rather run Windows will probably continue to run cheaper PC hardware instead.I dunno, I just don't think opening oneself up to the security holes is worth the "compatibility"...I've never had an issue finding an equivalent program for the Mac to do something I used to do on Windows, and in many cases the Mac program I found was actually better. JMHO.

[millster]

But if you read my earlier post, you'll see the appeal.I personally love Macs. I NEED to work in Windows quite often. I simply have no other choice.Yes, there is VPC but on the current Power PC chips, trying to do anything that I need to do is an exercise in futility. The new Intel hardware is going to change that. Either I'll be able to run Windows in a dual-boot configuration similar to Windows/Linux on a PC or (and I hope this is the case) run Windows in a compatibility layer a la VPC at full speed inside Mac OS. The average user isn't going to care to run Windows, likely. As I stated earlier, the major thing Apple has had standing in their way has been price. If the machine is competitively priced with the average PC people will buy it and use it with what it has. They won't attempt to install Windows or even care that it's possible. Those of us who have the need to occasionally use Windows but love the Mac and Mac OS but don't want to have that blasted ugly PC sitting on our desk next to the slim, sexy Mac love this concept!

[Kari]

Average Joe Computer User probably won't even know that his or her Mac is even capable of running Windows, if indeed it is. Just as long as Macs don't start shipping with Windows, I'll be fine...LOL.

[millster]

Quote, originally posted by Kari »Average Joe Computer User probably won't even know that his or her Mac is even capable of running Windows, if indeed it is. Just as long as Macs don't start shipping with Windows, I'll be fine...LOL.That's my thought. They won't even know or probably care. Ha! Yes, I'm with you there but I don't think we need to worry. With how strongly opposed Apple is to having Mac OS run on the average PC, I don't think they'll take that step anytime soon.

[binary]

In a perfect world, Apple releases OS-X86 and I go buy it online for my PC... then if I need windows XP... I just fire up VMWare. "Never ask a man what kind of computer he drives.If its a Mac, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him?" - Tom ClancyBy the way, I love your quote...

[northvibe]

Ok i love my mac and i love my pc. i do prefer mac now that osX 10.4 is out and just a blast to use. but ok to the point, the developer intel mac's can run windows xp yes but the retail ones will not be able to, apple said they were wanting to design a motherboard that when installing osx it looked for a chip on it to verify that it was a apple motherboard. it could be hacked im sure and other hardware drivers made to work on other pc's but it would take some work and time. osX is a unix (bsd) based so its possible....maybe.

[millster]

Quote, originally posted by northvibe »but ok to the point, the developer intel mac's can run windows xp yes but the retail ones will not be able to, apple said they were wanting to design a motherboard that when installing osx it looked for a chip on it to verify that it was a apple motherboard. Why do you think Apple won't allow Windows to be installed? I'm not trying to be critical, I'm just curious why you think that.Apple has stated since day one in their press release that they have no intentions of blocking Windows installation. The next questions is, of course, why would they?Think about it. OS X has an established userbase. These are the people buying a Mac not just for the hardware but also for the operating system. These are the people who will either stick with OS X exclusively because it meets their needs or like me, will install both Windows and OS X because that meets our needs.The way I see it, Apple only stands to make money from such a move. They still sell the machines pre-loaded with OS X so they're still selling the OS. Even if someone does buy a Mac, wipe it, and load Windows what's the harm? Apple still sold the machine and the OS license. If there are people out there who want to do this, they're the people who may have loved the Mac hardware in the past but couldn't get past the OS. In this case, Apple is actually GAINING buyers they couldn't appeal to in the past. Stopping the installation of Windows on a Mac would cost money for the development and they'd be blocking potential sales.Now, OS X on other PCs, I have to agree. There's no point in doing that. Yes, they might increase sales of OS X but they've survived to this point with the existing sales. The issue becomes supporting more hardware and taking away what has been one of OS X's strongest points. The fact that it's designed around a closed hardware set. The system is optimized for the hardware it runs on. Apple can engineer around hardware conflicts and not have to worry about what drivers may interact poorly with others. This allows for incredible stability and reliability. Add in a mix of hardware in thousands of possible configurations and you greatly increase the risk of instability. Apple would be smart to avoid that risk but not supporting that configuration. Sure, it might be possible to hack the OS to run on a PC but it's at your own risk and Apple doesn't have to support that installation.