But Do They Do Windows?
Okay, Steve Jobs introduced two new Intel Duo Macs today–an iMac and “MacBook,” both sporting dual-core CPUs, iSight built-in, and the usual round of goodies. But conspicuously absent from the keynote–and, to my surprise, also from the post-keynote web coverage–was the question of whether the new Macs can run Windows, and if one will have the ability to launch both side-by-side, switching easily between the two, without overtaxing the CPU. Although Microsoft’s representative appeared on-stage during the keynote and promised that MS Office for Mac would be supported for another five years (I could have sworn they’d stopped development with the last version, but apparently I’m wrong), neither she nor Jobs uttered a word about how cool it would be to run both systems on a Mac computer.
In fact, I had to do a search before I found anything on the subject, and found an AP story on Forbes reported that Apple has reiterated its claim that it will not “thwart” users who want to install Windows on the Mac. However, it’s pretty clear that Apple is not facilitating that option–yet.
Which means that if dual-boots and switching are possible, it’ll be a third-party hack, for now, at least. Intel’s Virtualization Technology promises something more advanced, and you’ve got to figure that Apple is going to jump on the bandwagon once people start doing it more.
One possible reason that Apple is holding back is the foreseen developer’s conflict, where software makers may drop Mac versions of software if they feel that Mac users will all be running Windows in tandem anyway. Perhaps Apple is not quite ready with it’s Dharma project (if true), and wants to introduce and popularize the development toolset before actively encouraging the dual-boot idea.
I think a big issue is bugs. They rob people of time. Time is money. Bugs are money.
The intel mac’s running Mac OS X need to be very stable in order to be popular.
Same w/ Windows os running on them.
I think it is hard to stop someone from installing windows os on the new Mac hardware.
Also, I think Apple will not be helping them.
Therefore, I think we’ll end up with an industry of folks who put Windows os onto the Mac.
They need to write drivers for the Mac hardware, and a bios that boots up Windows Xp. That may take 6mths ?
I think Microsoft will want Windows Os on Intel Macs, to sell more Windows Xp, and help Mac people migrate from Apple Os to Microsoft Os.
And I think Apple will not favor it due to the fear of migration. Therefore, I think they’ll be mum w.r.t. this issue.
Luis,
A friend sent me this thought you might be interested
http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cultofmac/index.blog?entry_id=1385976
this guy says the new macs may not be much faster than the old macs for most things
http://www.edn.com/blog/400000040/post/590002459.html?ref=nbbl
Thinking about this, I think it’d be suicidal for Apple to help the new machines easily run Windows and Mac OS at the same time.
Owners of companies that develop software just wouldn’t bother doing Mac OS versions. Why bother? They can simply write for Windows, knowing that the owners of the Mac machines can run their software anyway. I honestly think that’s the reason Jobs and Apple didn’t throw that in there.
When you think about the costs involved in developing software, without the Dharma developing environment (or something that lets you write once for both OSs) there’s just nowhere near as much reason to write a Mac OS version of software, if Mac machine owners can run it in Windows anyway (assuming they’re doing the dual-OS thing). So developers would simply write one program that runs in both OSs.
And if Apple were to support that, it’d kill them in the long run anyway. Let’s imagine for a minute that Apple allows and makes dual-boot easy, both for users and for developers. If Dharma comes to fruition and the developers can write for both OSs at once, then there *still* would be powerful reasons to bypass the Mac hardware.
Why? Because if you can run software in either OS, but Windows hardware costs less (and let’s face it, Wintel boxes generally cost less than Macs), why would you buy Apple’s hardware? Just to be able to run an application in Mac OS? But the applications all run in Windows as well!
Down the road, what compelling reason would someone have to buy Mac hardware?
The only thing that Apple really has going for it is their OS. That’s everything. They can’t compete in the hardware market; they should not want to get into the business of building Wintel boxes, because that market is vicious. Apple stuff might work together better and easier (and always has), but that’s because they’re proprietary in their standards.
Wintel boxes, by virtue of being like open source when it comes to OS compatibility, has a huge advantage over Apple boxes. Anyone can make hardware that runs Windows OS and applications, but if you want to make hardware that runs Mac OS, it’s got to meet Apple’s standards and they monopolize the CPU market.
Apple supporting dual-boot just doesn’t make sense to me. They need to continue making their OS better; and they need to continue making their hardware proprietary and not do anything to encourage users to utilize Windows OS based software.
If there’s no difference in the software versions (since both OS versions were developed at the same time on the same kit) and the hardware is more expensive, why would anyone buy a Mac?
Paul
Seattle, WA