OMG:More and more people are buying and loving Macs. To make this choice simply irresistible, Apple will include technology in the next major release of Mac OS X, Leopard, that lets you install and run the Windows XP operating system on your Mac. Called Boot Camp (for now), you can download a public beta today.
As elegant as it gets
Boot Camp lets you install Windows XP without moving your Mac data, though you will need to bring your own copy to the table, as Apple Computer does not sell or support Microsoft Windows.(1) Boot Camp will burn a CD of all the required drivers for Windows so you don't have to scrounge around the Internet looking for them.
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. This applies to new Intel based Macs of course. I knew this was possible, but for a variety of long held reasons I didn't think it would happen officially (and I figured they'd thwart the unofficial mods enough that it wouldn't be attractive to the normal person.) But once again I was wrong. With a few misgivings I am very happy to see this move.
Linux too? I could see corporate IT departments moving back to the Mac if they could stock one machine that could be a universal platform. Corporate IT guys love that sort of thing.
No official word on that yet but the consensus is yes. Certainly linux is booting already with unsupported mods. I agree that this could be a very good thing for Apple. Or at least for aapl.
A does-it-all machine could be a trojan horse for Apple's OS.
"Hey, IT gave me this new PC, and it has this 'Mac' mode that's really a lot easier to use! It's kinda like Windows, but doesn't suck."
It's been done before. Back in the day, the IBM PC was a CP/M machine that could run all your favorite programs, but it could also run something new called "DOS".
Good point!
The argument against this from the Mac community has always been: if Macs can run Windows then no developer will ever write Mac programs because they will just say "Mac users can just run my Windows binary." There has always been a fear of too much compatibility. See: OS/2.
I think the OS/2 argument used to be true, but no longer is. This is the perfect time for this move, and it may well work like the trojan horse you suggest.
An alternative point of view, from Steve Gilliard (no Mac fan--I have no opinion formed as yet): Mac OSX meet Palm OS. Both on life support because of Microsoft.
It's all about style now, unless the MacOS is about to run on PC's.
Oh, people may boot into MacOSx for photoshop, maybe Safari, but when you see that guy in the corner playing Evercrack on a next gen ibook, you'll know Apple has surrendered.
It's different than Palm, but I can see how someone would make that case. OS/2 is much more of a warning than Palm. Palm failed for completely different reasons.
And if he means to say that Windows is the superior OS for playing video games then I concede he is correct (DirectX9 leaves Apple unable to compete here, even if it's true that they are not trying.) But I don't see what this really has to do with it.
Apple machines will always be more expensive than the *cheapest* Windows machines (even though Apple machines are now Windows machines in a sense) so if you just want to play Evercrack then of course you should buy a cheap Windows machine. I think he maybe overestimates the percent of the market that actually makes purchase decisions based on video games. (I would guess those people would be more likely to be console players - XBox, PlayStation, etc... - but I've never seen any numbers and can't even think of a way to quantify this intuition.)
In any case, to take a cheap shot from our last Gilliard/Apple discussion - I think this will probably fail like the Shuffle!
To elaborate (or is that belabor?) the OS/2 point: IBM developed this cool operating system OS/2 (actually in conjunction with Microsoft, but this is the short version,) and it was poised to compete with Windows. But they made it able to run Windows programs, and in the end nobody switched to OS/2 because all it could do was run Windows programs, and everybody already had an operating system that could do that: Windows!
But the reason all it could do was run Windows programs is the point. IBM was pushing their new OS - which really was cool in many ways - but the developers of all the major software (software creation was much more monolithic back then) took a look at it and said: "It runs Windows binaries? We already support it!" In other words, they never rewrote their software to take advantage of the advances that OS/2 provided precisely because OS/2 provided a compatibility layer to run the "inferior" Windows programs which they already had ready to go at no additional cost.
Apple is in a questionable position, for sure, but they are trying to make a real play. They have the complete stack. I'm not sure how to explain this without going on at length. But it's not just that Apple has put a pretty face on a generic OS that could be theirs, or could be Microsofts. They have done much more than that with OS X. The design goes all the way down. And they provide the whole stack with every computer! The development tools - the entire environment - comes with every Mac OS Disc. There is a complete "Apple way" of doing things from the software developers through to the end users. That's what makes the experience of using their computers so intuitive - providing you've drunk the kool-aid or the Apple way just also happens to be your way too.
But remember, they don't want the whole market. They just want a little bit more than they have.
So if Web 2.0 is for real (or substitute: "If Ruby on Rails is for real") and web development can really be done by a small shop (think Flickr, del.ici.ous, Basecamp, Odeo, etc...) then the old fear of being OS/2'd loses all it's power. So what if Apple's can run Microsoft programs? In the old days this might have meant that the big companies who are only concerned with their bottom lines would have chosen to only develop for Windows (since "Apple users can just run the Windows programs.") But in the new agile development world, made possible by our newly sophisticated software development environments, it only takes a few dedicated people to make a "killer app". So there will always be native Mac programs that make full use of the native Mac development stack (coreaudio, corevideo, coredata,etc....) And further, they will make software that is so obviously better than their Windows counterparts, that a side by side comparison will leave dual booting Mac owners *only* booting into Windows to play Evercrack. There won't be any other reason.
And that will be just fine by Apple.
We probably talked about this--I permatemped at IBM and used OS/2 for 3 years. It was weird, you had to open Windows from within OS/2 to run word processing, graphics, etc. It was always glitchy and slow. In 1998 we got Windows 95 and OS/2 was gone. (That's when I lost MSPaintbrush to MSPaint.)
One thing maybe weighing against OS X providing the entire *current* software package with every computer is backwards compatibility. The Times just did an article about the delay of Windows Vista. Apparently it's up to 50 Million lines of code because Microsoft won't cut loose programs that run on older versions.
The way the article described it, they don't want to do what Apple did between 9 and X, cut loose older programs--which to me sounds like a real betrayal. I mean, I can still run MSPaintbrush on Windows, now that I have a copy of it; it prints and saves files and everything.
Whereas some of my musician friends use two computers, one running OS9 with the software they're used to working with.
As an artist and musician, I don't want all my software running the same way. I like the diversity of independently developed software instruments, from multiple generations, that all run on XP. Viva la difference and all that.
That's just my 2 cents. I'm not a knee jerk Apple hater, believe it or not. I just sort of prefer the genericness of Windows. The stuff I need to work works, the audio and video drivers, etc--and I disregard all the "Bill stuff" like Windows Media Player.
I don't think you're an Apple hater. Probably I come off a little too strident. I just like talking about it.
i think hes an apple hater. not every one has the chops for PCS. think of it as help for the handicapped with good design.
|
- jim 4-05-2006 6:17 pm
Linux too? I could see corporate IT departments moving back to the Mac if they could stock one machine that could be a universal platform. Corporate IT guys love that sort of thing.
- mark 4-06-2006 1:23 am
No official word on that yet but the consensus is yes. Certainly linux is booting already with unsupported mods. I agree that this could be a very good thing for Apple. Or at least for aapl.
- jim 4-06-2006 5:00 am
A does-it-all machine could be a trojan horse for Apple's OS.
"Hey, IT gave me this new PC, and it has this 'Mac' mode that's really a lot easier to use! It's kinda like Windows, but doesn't suck."
It's been done before. Back in the day, the IBM PC was a CP/M machine that could run all your favorite programs, but it could also run something new called "DOS".
- mark 4-06-2006 5:37 am
Good point!
The argument against this from the Mac community has always been: if Macs can run Windows then no developer will ever write Mac programs because they will just say "Mac users can just run my Windows binary." There has always been a fear of too much compatibility. See: OS/2.
I think the OS/2 argument used to be true, but no longer is. This is the perfect time for this move, and it may well work like the trojan horse you suggest.
- jim 4-06-2006 6:34 am
An alternative point of view, from Steve Gilliard (no Mac fan--I have no opinion formed as yet):
- tom moody 4-06-2006 6:46 am
It's different than Palm, but I can see how someone would make that case. OS/2 is much more of a warning than Palm. Palm failed for completely different reasons.
And if he means to say that Windows is the superior OS for playing video games then I concede he is correct (DirectX9 leaves Apple unable to compete here, even if it's true that they are not trying.) But I don't see what this really has to do with it.
Apple machines will always be more expensive than the *cheapest* Windows machines (even though Apple machines are now Windows machines in a sense) so if you just want to play Evercrack then of course you should buy a cheap Windows machine. I think he maybe overestimates the percent of the market that actually makes purchase decisions based on video games. (I would guess those people would be more likely to be console players - XBox, PlayStation, etc... - but I've never seen any numbers and can't even think of a way to quantify this intuition.)
In any case, to take a cheap shot from our last Gilliard/Apple discussion - I think this will probably fail like the Shuffle!
- jim 4-06-2006 7:19 am
To elaborate (or is that belabor?) the OS/2 point: IBM developed this cool operating system OS/2 (actually in conjunction with Microsoft, but this is the short version,) and it was poised to compete with Windows. But they made it able to run Windows programs, and in the end nobody switched to OS/2 because all it could do was run Windows programs, and everybody already had an operating system that could do that: Windows!
But the reason all it could do was run Windows programs is the point. IBM was pushing their new OS - which really was cool in many ways - but the developers of all the major software (software creation was much more monolithic back then) took a look at it and said: "It runs Windows binaries? We already support it!" In other words, they never rewrote their software to take advantage of the advances that OS/2 provided precisely because OS/2 provided a compatibility layer to run the "inferior" Windows programs which they already had ready to go at no additional cost.
Apple is in a questionable position, for sure, but they are trying to make a real play. They have the complete stack. I'm not sure how to explain this without going on at length. But it's not just that Apple has put a pretty face on a generic OS that could be theirs, or could be Microsofts. They have done much more than that with OS X. The design goes all the way down. And they provide the whole stack with every computer! The development tools - the entire environment - comes with every Mac OS Disc. There is a complete "Apple way" of doing things from the software developers through to the end users. That's what makes the experience of using their computers so intuitive - providing you've drunk the kool-aid or the Apple way just also happens to be your way too.
But remember, they don't want the whole market. They just want a little bit more than they have.
So if Web 2.0 is for real (or substitute: "If Ruby on Rails is for real") and web development can really be done by a small shop (think Flickr, del.ici.ous, Basecamp, Odeo, etc...) then the old fear of being OS/2'd loses all it's power. So what if Apple's can run Microsoft programs? In the old days this might have meant that the big companies who are only concerned with their bottom lines would have chosen to only develop for Windows (since "Apple users can just run the Windows programs.") But in the new agile development world, made possible by our newly sophisticated software development environments, it only takes a few dedicated people to make a "killer app". So there will always be native Mac programs that make full use of the native Mac development stack (coreaudio, corevideo, coredata,etc....) And further, they will make software that is so obviously better than their Windows counterparts, that a side by side comparison will leave dual booting Mac owners *only* booting into Windows to play Evercrack. There won't be any other reason.
And that will be just fine by Apple.
- jim 4-06-2006 7:42 am
We probably talked about this--I permatemped at IBM and used OS/2 for 3 years. It was weird, you had to open Windows from within OS/2 to run word processing, graphics, etc. It was always glitchy and slow. In 1998 we got Windows 95 and OS/2 was gone. (That's when I lost MSPaintbrush to MSPaint.)
One thing maybe weighing against OS X providing the entire *current* software package with every computer is backwards compatibility. The Times just did an article about the delay of Windows Vista. Apparently it's up to 50 Million lines of code because Microsoft won't cut loose programs that run on older versions.
The way the article described it, they don't want to do what Apple did between 9 and X, cut loose older programs--which to me sounds like a real betrayal. I mean, I can still run MSPaintbrush on Windows, now that I have a copy of it; it prints and saves files and everything.
Whereas some of my musician friends use two computers, one running OS9 with the software they're used to working with.
As an artist and musician, I don't want all my software running the same way. I like the diversity of independently developed software instruments, from multiple generations, that all run on XP. Viva la difference and all that.
That's just my 2 cents. I'm not a knee jerk Apple hater, believe it or not. I just sort of prefer the genericness of Windows. The stuff I need to work works, the audio and video drivers, etc--and I disregard all the "Bill stuff" like Windows Media Player.
- tom moody 4-06-2006 8:26 am
I don't think you're an Apple hater. Probably I come off a little too strident. I just like talking about it.
- jim 4-06-2006 3:41 pm
i think hes an apple hater. not every one has the chops for PCS. think of it as help for the handicapped with good design.
- bill 4-06-2006 5:38 pm