Apple officially supports IntelMac users to install Windows on their machines
- Thread starter phenix
- Start date
hupfinsgack said:
Anyone who buys an apple is paying a premium, so it is obvious that they have something that makes mac enthusiasts happy.
In other words there is not any threat that Mac folks will run off to windows land. They were happy with inferior hardware for years, so it must have been the OS
Sxotty said:Anyone who buys an apple is paying a premium, so it is obvious that they have something that makes mac enthusiasts happy.
In other words there is not any threat that Mac folks will run off to windows land. They were happy with inferior hardware for years, so it must have been the OS
Don't get me wrong, it just feels so alien.
since macs really look good, and also have a good price for the design/bult quality, i am sure that now a lot of people (those who know about the windows install possibility) will buy a mac where they couldnt buy one before.
at least for me, now, a mac can be considered, seriously!
hmm.. linux installation allready supportet?
and like this, even more people will get to like the apple OS's
at least for me, now, a mac can be considered, seriously!
hmm.. linux installation allready supportet?
and like this, even more people will get to like the apple OS's
IgnorancePersonified
Regular
Couple of die hards here at work are talkign about it this morning. It means they can buy a mac and dual boot xpsp2 or vista for compatabilty but go back to thier 'main' OS. That's one less pc right there. They are so excited they have taken thier ipod ear buds out!booomups said:
More here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4880022.stm
I think many people will migrate to OSX.
edited: More news http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70593-0.html?tw=wn_index_3
Now you can migrate from Windows XP to OSX swiftlly
I think many people will migrate to OSX.
edited: More news http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70593-0.html?tw=wn_index_3
Now you can migrate from Windows XP to OSX swiftlly
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually I think this is a good business decision in general. Many people who likes MacOS X still buys Windows PC, why? Because their family, or themselves, need Windows. Although many argue that MacOS X has better UI, but to those familiar with Windows, it's just an alien UI. Since most don't want to buy another computer, they buy Windows PC instead.
Now with this, you can buy an Intel Mac, and run both. When you are not playing (most) games, or when your family need to use the computer, you can now use Windows. I think this will make more people to consider Intel Mac.
The only possible downside is that application developers may be even less motivated to develop applications for MacOS X, because now Intel Mac can run Windows. However, if this strategy really increases the market share of Intel Macs, I think more application developers will consider making applications for MacOS X.
And about overpriced hardwares... I think Mac mini is actually quite affordable. The Aopen's Mac mini clone is actually more expensive.
Now with this, you can buy an Intel Mac, and run both. When you are not playing (most) games, or when your family need to use the computer, you can now use Windows. I think this will make more people to consider Intel Mac.
The only possible downside is that application developers may be even less motivated to develop applications for MacOS X, because now Intel Mac can run Windows. However, if this strategy really increases the market share of Intel Macs, I think more application developers will consider making applications for MacOS X.
And about overpriced hardwares... I think Mac mini is actually quite affordable. The Aopen's Mac mini clone is actually more expensive.
pcchen said:
Perhaps, but I'm not thinking about the ultra low-end as the video used there sucks donkeys [intel 950] even for integrated video. But we'll see how things pan out when Apple releases their desktop Intel lineup. Hopefully thatlineup will be closer to the commodity part prices.
And as for dual-booting, it completely sucks and is almost a non-solution to having to run WinOS apps. Often times people will end up booting into Windows and staying there even for day to day tasks just in case they may need/want to run a WinOS app.
The first to come out with a Mac OS X virtualization app will capture a good part of the market. There's plenty of potential out there for one to be released soon.
Last edited by a moderator:
On another note, http://sekhon.berkeley.edu/macosx/ and http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520
It seems there is a reason to run XP or linux on a mac...
(yes I know the anandtech is a repost).
It seems there is a reason to run XP or linux on a mac...
(yes I know the anandtech is a repost).
Richteralan
Regular
BRiT said:
Of course, virtualization is even better. Running two OS at the same time basically solved the data sharing problem (you can share data through samba now). And if it can connect to two sets of monitor/mouse/keyboards to be used by two people simultaneously, it'd be even better.
I see this as a wise move from Apple. It seems risky but in reality there is not a big probability that Apple will lose thier loyal userbase just because they have the option to install windows on thir machines. These people are paying a premium for using OS X for the price of having less capable hardware compared to windows machines. If they had liked windows they would do it before. Besides Apple's market share is already very low. They sell 2.5% of all PCs in the world. It can only get higher than this. People will have one less reason to avoid Macs. If apple can increase thier share just a bit this can be the trigger for a larger switch. The big question is, will the developers follow? That is yet to be seen but it is already easier for developers to write thier applications for macs with Intel CPUs.
pcchen said:
It's already been released.
Here's a little demo of the virtualization software by Parallels running on a mac. The person just installs Firefox and does some browsing as well as rebooting XP.
Some people on slashdot have commented that this is more of a move to better transition the migration to the Intel architechture. Many applications for the Mac are still PPC native, Adobe is findig it tough to transition to intel architechture (This is mainly due to migrating all the code base into Xcode, a daunting a laborious task) that they're skipping the native version of Creative Suite until the next iteration. So this will provide a better alternative, Photoshop running on Intel Macs "natively". instead of the slower Rosetta option.
The only real detriment with this approach is that Game publishers/developers will be turned off in making mac specific games, or even ports, since games will run fine under XP on a mac. I would speculate that it would have little impact in the applications world since people seem to enjoy working under OSX.
This move is more of a PITA for Dell and HP and such. Now they have to compete with Apple in the hardware front, though they still have a price advantage. I haven't read if Apple pays royalties to MS for this software but I'm sure MS is "all for it."
Last edited by a moderator:
