Ugh, the title is already a mouthful as it is but that's what some people are speculating.
AirmanPika posted on the OSx86 Project forums yesterday that he managed to get a beta copy of Windows Vista working on his Intel Mac (one of the Intel CPU based iMacs). He had trouble installing some drivers, which doesn't surprise me since Boot Camp is currently made to work with Windows XP. Beta testers (with PC's, not Macs) already have enough trouble getting devices to work on Vista that would normally work just fine with XP installed.
How did he do it? Using Boot Camp and according to Cringley: " Microsoft LOVES Boot Camp and I am sure they'll say that shortly. After all, Boot Camp sells more copies of Windows without threatening more sophisticated products like Microsoft's own Virtual PC.
One reason why Microsoft isn't surprised by Boot Camp is because Microsoft has been working with Apple to make sure that Windows Vista runs well on Intel Macs. Apple will support Vista dual boot, though I don't know if they will become a Vista OEM, but I can't imagine why they wouldn't if it will help sales." He goes on to predict that soon, we'll all be able to buy OS X that wil happily chug along on a Celeron (or AMD). What is the world coming to?
Frank Boosman however is willing to bet that Apple won't do it by saying " It's not going to happen. And I'm willing to make a public bet with Cringely that it won't." People, it seems are falling over themselves to prove him otherwise.
What everyone seems to forget is the fact that it only took a swift decision from the 2 big boys to allow Windows XP to boot on Macs, and from what I've seen they are a lot further with this initial release than anyone else has been with porting OS X to standard PC's.
View: Vista installed on a iMac @ OSx86 Project
Their 2 cents: I, Cringley & Frank Boosman
How did he do it? Using Boot Camp and according to Cringley: " Microsoft LOVES Boot Camp and I am sure they'll say that shortly. After all, Boot Camp sells more copies of Windows without threatening more sophisticated products like Microsoft's own Virtual PC.
One reason why Microsoft isn't surprised by Boot Camp is because Microsoft has been working with Apple to make sure that Windows Vista runs well on Intel Macs. Apple will support Vista dual boot, though I don't know if they will become a Vista OEM, but I can't imagine why they wouldn't if it will help sales." He goes on to predict that soon, we'll all be able to buy OS X that wil happily chug along on a Celeron (or AMD). What is the world coming to?
Frank Boosman however is willing to bet that Apple won't do it by saying " It's not going to happen. And I'm willing to make a public bet with Cringely that it won't." People, it seems are falling over themselves to prove him otherwise.
What everyone seems to forget is the fact that it only took a swift decision from the 2 big boys to allow Windows XP to boot on Macs, and from what I've seen they are a lot further with this initial release than anyone else has been with porting OS X to standard PC's.
View: Vista installed on a iMac @ OSx86 Project Their 2 cents: I, Cringley & Frank Boosman
As for OSX on an x86, I am not sure when Apple will release this but I am sure they will, why not sell software as well as hardware - you never know people may even make the switch when it comes to upgrade time again!
What I really want to see is a Mac that can boot / switch into Windows, OSX or Linux at the click of a button, that would really be worth spending the cash on... Although it may not appeal to the average user, hobbyists would probably be more willing to buy from an OEM if this added flexibility was available.
It seems that this is all working towards a greater plan - open standards across all OS's so no matter which machine you have in front of you, you will be able to use the OS and the software with your data!
Last edited by Cy Bones on 10 Apr 2006 - 16:05
OS X, if I recall, requires 128 MB of RAM. XP only requires 64, but you would be crazy to run it with less then 128. Neither system runs well until you get at least 256, and more is always better.
I don't see Apple selling OS X on other hardware either. For one they would loose out on their hardware profits, which currently subsidize the development of OS X. Two, they would not have the same level of quality control they currently have.
I'm certain that Apple had a copy of BootCamp in the works since the first intel macs hit the Apple campus. How could the programmers at Apple see an intel mac and not think, "Hey, we gotta get Windows on this thing". Whether Apple always planned to release BootCamp is debatable, but once Apple saw that it had been done by the open source community, they figured they'd be better off releasing BootCamp, even if it wasn't perfect (hence the 'beta' release).
As for the 'Windows-on-Mac' leading to 'OSX-on-PC'? The two are not the same at all. It's been beaten to death, but Apple's a hardware company and Microsoft is a software company. 'Windows-on-Mac' benefits both parties, while 'OSX-on-PC' hurts both parties. If OSX could run on a standard PC, MS would sell fewer copies of Windows and Apple would sell fewer Macs. Personally, I don't think either company wants that to happen.
However, the notion that MS and Apple are working to ensure that Vista runs well on Macs? Sounds good to me.
Yes, I know, Apple is a hardware company, blah blah blah. They've been that way for years, and it has gotten them squat in the big scheme of things. Now is the time to release a serious, viable alternative to Windows, since Vista has been pushed back, not many people are excited about Vista to begin with, or are happy with Microsoft in general. Most people I know view Windows as a neccessary evil, not something they like using, and most people view Microsoft as down-right evil period.
*edit*
How did my comment end up here? I didn't reply to this... ?
http://www.boosman.com/blog/2006/04/cringe..._x_for_pcs.html
It answers your questions. Or at least debunks your assumptions.
There are already Intel-based PCs that are custom designed to run OSX. They're called Macs. Why would Apple subcontract their hardware work to Dell or HP? It doesn't make any sense. All you'll end up with is a Mac built by Dell, or a Mac built by HP.
Also, how exactly can you say that "it hasn't gotten them squat in the big scheme of things". What exactly is the "big scheme of things"? Having a huge market share? You know, it is entirely possible to be insanely profitable without all the headaches of a ginormous user-base. Look at Nintendo. They're more profitable than either Sony's or MS's console divisions, and yet they sell fewer consoles than either competitor.
I'd continue, but most of what I'd say is echoed in the link above. So just read that.
I have a question. If OSX and Apple's software products run on 'build-yourself' PCs just as well as on Macs, why would someone 'switch' when upgrade time came around?
I submit that the opposite is true. If OSX ran on PCs, you'd see Mac owners, at upgrade time, ditching their Macs and building their own PCs.
That's a big if... As far as I can tell so far, WinXP runs better on Apple hardware because it is all optimised to work together (and has even been designed especially for the machines). In terms of self build PCs, it can be harder to find the optimal balance (I expect a lot of comments about that statement!
If Apple release their OS to run on a self build machine they can quite easily market it saying that although it will perform well on your machine it will run even better on Mac hardware.
I am currently a Windows user with a self built machine - just trying to see both sides of the story!
i just had a thought! Windows Media Center on an iMac, controlled w/ the Apple remote...it'd be nice if that could get worked out
The Apple remote has like 6 buttons, though. Would six buttons be enough to fully control WMC?
The Apple remote has like 6 buttons, though. Would six buttons be enough to fully control WMC?
I've never used WMC, so I can't answer that, but I can control the entirety of my home entertainment center with a total of about 12 buttons on my harmony remote, so I would think six buttons should suffice for WMC. Isn't it mostly just navigating using the four arrow buttons and hitting the OK button?
You CAN technically boot all four, it's whether or not you dig enough for the information to run them all
You failed to mention how OSX-on-PC will not hurt both Apple and Microsoft. Sure, it might benefit the consumer (because they won't have to pony up the dough for a Mac)...but how does it not hurt Apple and MS?
And as for Apple excelling in their software and entertainment devices? Well for one, entertainment devices are hardware, last I checked. For two, they need to make quality software. Otherwise, no one would buy their hardware. Understand that the only reason Apple makes the software they make is to encourage their hardware sales.
And please, read the blog post linked to above:
http://www.boosman.com/blog/2006/04/cringe..._x_for_pcs.html
It explains quite nicely the flaw in the idea that it would be beneficial for Apple to release OSX for any ol' PC.
Last edited by Jack31081 on 10 Apr 2006 - 17:20
However the oposite is not true. If OSX were to run on PC's then a lot of people would just buy the Mac operating system instead of overpriced mac hardware, thus apple makes less money.
The other thing that gets me is why would anyone want to run mac on a regular PC? Mac OSX in itself is very responsive and feels "quicker" in some respects, but you also have to remember its designed to work only on very limited, specific Apple hardware. Dump the whole thing onto the regular PC and then you have Hundreds of thousands of different possible hardware configurations and drivers to worry about which lets face it, is a major reason why windows is how it is (sluggish, less stable)
They keep all the legacy code in there to make sure older hardware still works, and thats great for all the major companies that have hundreds of PC's that don't exactly get upgraded all that often, but what happens for the enthusiasts that care about keeping their PC up to date and running in top condition is we get tones of BLOAT in the operating system that is just not needed at all.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.