XP on MACS...

Its official, Apple has released Boot Camp which allows XP to be installed on Intel based MACs.

Yeah, now all we need is for it to be legal to do things the other way around, install Mac OS X on an x86 PC, now that would be something.

Just waiting for a nice powermac x86... yummy!!

From Apple's Boot Camp public beta page: "Apple Computer does not sell or support Microsoft Windows [...] Remember, Apple Computer does not sell or support Microsoft Windows."

LOL! No doubt.



I don't think that Apple has much justification left for fighting that, now that they've opened their machines to MS's OS.


This one time, at Boot Camp, I stuck my Windows in my Mac!

Cool, probably the only reason to buy a mac would be to be able to make PC and Mac games on the same puter.

I'd laugh if it ran better on a Mac.

Yeah, perhaps if Linux can run on a Power PC or Mac Intel, why not Win XP? Linux was actually designed for the x86 originally (since it was IBM's idea beforehand to team up with Linus Trovalds on his OS). Of course, now that Lenovo owns the IBM line of PCs, then I guess that Linux is powerful enough to go all over.

Back on topic, yeah, take a Mac Mini, put Win XP Pro in there, and see what happens...

Linux can currently run on Power PC Macs, I at least know one computer savy guy that does just that. Don't know how hard it would be to set up a triple install though, OSX, Linux and XP, would be cool though. Guess the next time I buy a new machine I'll be replacing my two current ones, with a single one.

A Mac is (now) just another PC in a fancy box.

i have to agree... the Mac ui was the thing, now it's just another Win box... why spend twice the cash for a Mac just to run WinXP when you can buy 3 equivilant e-Machines for what one Mac will run ya...

this move marks the beggining of the end for Macs...

--Mike

Yay!
Now I can get Apple's ridiculously expensive hardware without a good reason!

Why would I want their restrictive, fancy design oriented hardware (exception being their even more expensive computers which are supposedly quite good) to run Windows when I could run it with a less expensive box that can be upgraded (and has more than one disk drive) for far less money?


I don't get it...

Interesting, though. I wonder what they're up to... trying to get better into the computer building industry, perhaps? (This time with slightly more agile computers).
Can this thing boot Linux, or is it somehow Windows specific? (Which would be a dumb thing, since I would rather work under Windows and Linux with a cheaper machine, since it won't cost me as nearly much considering the price of the OSs).

I can think of one thing that I have no ills to say about, though. Apple makes good laptops - especially in terms of portability; some of those things are just Too Big! - and I would be much more tempted to get one if they ran an OS that won't inevitably start arguing with my desktop one.
(And in fairness: I'm sure, in that case, that Windows would have started the argument and my slow-witted Linux distro would be sitting in the outskirts of it all, with no idea what to do after the catastrophic fury that had just occured).

The only reason they have done this is because the know they can't port OSX to generic machines and think that people will spend a 3-5x more for generic hardware just to be a fashion statement....

From Apple's point of view this is a great marketing tool, since it can be used to hlep a lot of windows people who are currently 'on the fence' make the switch to the mac.

Personally I'd be much more interested in running OSX on a generic PC than pay the premium for having an Apple logo slapped on a 'pretty' PC.

I'd rather spend less by buying generic hardware, or the same on extra power instead of a pretty case.

The main hurdle in having OSX run natively on a normal PC is probably that they don't use BIOS to boot, but some 'next generation' system called EFI... But I'd think that there's a good chance for a virtualization layer such as VMWare or VirtualPC to run OSX in the near future... there's already been VMWare hacks out for the original x86 developer release of OSX, after all.

And their yearly updates that cost you a finger each time.

Why does it require OS X to boot Windows XP? I'm afraid I don't see why they say that it's required when 1) this 'Boot Camp' thing isn't even needed to use Windows XP on an Intel Mac and 2) OS X is most likely not going to be used at the same time as Windows XP (unless Boot Camp is just their name for "slow emulator").

To be honest, Apple's just annoying when it comes to this. I'll applaud their good marketing and ability to rip off people and fanboys by making shiny white objects, but I can't approve of it. I'm surprised Mac users haven't stopped buying their crap.

The macbook pro is my perfect machine. I want one as soon as possible.

You're still relatively young Noel. As you grow old and grey, you'll cease being amazed at the general stupidity of people.

Why not? Mac already uses Intel chips, why not sell Macs with AMD technology and make themselves even?

Boot Camp is just a utility that lets you dual boot your intel Mac with either WindowsXP or OSX. It comes with all the drivers you need for the intel Mac to run WinXP, and that's about it. No emulation needed.

For developers I think this is great news. Now you only need one machine to make Windows and OSX games (tripple boot would be better so you could get Linux in there too). I currently have an AMD workstation running WinXP and Linux, and a 12" iBook. For some reason I find myself using the iBook much more, even though it has about 1/4th of the power of my workstation and half the screen size, maybe it's because I can work on it while lying in bed. :-) My "work"station mostly gets used for games and watching DVDs.

As for the price. Macs are more expensive than cheap PCs, but if you look for a quality built brand name machine, such as IBM or Sony VAIO, the prices become more comparable.

Ragnar

Are Sony Vaio Quality machines? I thought they were trying to compete with apple only with cheaper components. Just checked the web site and one of the better desktops comes with a Graphics ATI RADEON® X300 128MB DDR SDRAM

Summary of X300 review:

X300 is ATIs new "budget" model and really its not going to be a good purchase unless you are powering a 800x600 limited machine. I know the prices are extremely low and for people with severly limited budgets they might prove a viable option but personally id recommend picking up a 9700 pro, even second hand. In its defence the X300 is noisless (passively cooled), has great driver support and displays with the usual high 2D quality we expect from ATI, this might also suit a home server system set up for hosting LAN games or even for a quiet "parents" pc for occasional low end gaming. Does it sound like im clutching at straws?


(Doesn't look like you will be playing games on one of those)

As far as the mac's go. I don't really see any advantages to using one for the kinds of things I use a PC for. My Auntie likes hers though.

BTE those base model mac mini's barely run OSX. There isn't really enough ram, and so they are a bit slow and unresponsive. Barely multitask with a web browser and mail client running.

The prices even out, but the quality of the Mac is likely to be well under that of its equivalently priced PC.

"The prices even out, but the quality of the Mac is likely to be well under that of its equivalently priced PC."

Hmm... if that isn't the most blind fanboy comment yet I don't know what is.

Well, then again, you got the Mac Mini, which is basically Apple's "budget" Mac. Unfortunately, you only get integrated graphics with Mac Mini, if you want the better graphics and components, then the iMac would probably be what you would have to think about doing.

How can one be a fanboy of common hardware that just about every existent computer company uses?
That's like saying I'm a vegetable fanboy. The only people who don't eat those are vegans. And there's no such thing as vegans.



I like the Mac Mini :)
It's a great thing to suggest to people who "just want a computer" for no reason beyond email. (Even though you just know they'll somehow decide that the cover behind some spyware or virus is going to help them).
As I've said; Mac stuff has its place, and I know that many many people like it for lots of stuff.
I think Apple should perhaps look at distancing themselves from the idea of desktop computers, though. They do very pleasant design, which works great for laptops, PDAs (I was looking at an article about Apple through the ages; it looks like they made one very nice PDA back in the day), and music players.
With desktop computers, however, they seem to sacrifice everything that makes them worthwhile as desktop computers for the sake of a few fancy curves.
A great many Macs may as well be laptops. (And if the size is anything to go by, I wouldn't be surprised if making them into one was as simple as getting a flatter case and seperating the screen from everything else).
The exceptions, of course, are the apparently powerful tower designs which I don't pay much attention to (or hear much about). Though I do believe that they are very good, and won't question that until I actually encounter one for real. (Innocent until proven guilty and all. I kind of... backed myself into a corner there with that vigilance).



The responses that I'm reading here through my Google News RSS feeds are fascinating...
For example, this one seems to be excitedly happy about the fact that a Mac computer running Windows runs FarCry just as well as any other PC with similar hardware.
Personally, I find that to be something that Apple fans shouldn't be happy about (you know... the whole thing about Apple building really good computers, thus justifying their cost?), but I will leave them to it.

I've used a dual processor G5 tower at work in the past, though not very actively, we used them for Final Cut Pro and Shake. I did some Apple Scripting on one and...hated it. Not because of the machines, but because of Apple Script just being a weird language with annoying bugs such as not being able to get file dates correctly unless you prodded the file with a cattle prod first.

Actually, when comparing PC workstations to Macs, we should be comparing it to the G5 towers and not the iMac or Mac Mini. The iMac should be compared to similair all in one PCs (there are a few), and the Mini to something like MiniATX or that AOpen box that looks exactly like the Mini Mac. :-)

Ragnar

Who knows? One day you may have a Mac that can triple boot into either Win XP, Mac OS X, or Linux. With a setup like that, you can easily buy any software title off the shelf, and be able to run it right out of the box. I can see that happening eventually...

funny how people see nintendo for innovation and lifestyle and do not criticise nintendos less than cutting edge hardware.

The mac has innovated both in how the hardware is used, and how the os is used.

Windows platform hardware and os is only catching up, and this is a trend set to continue.

Macs are also a design statement, I have yet to see any pc laptop offer the same simple attention to detail and satify my perfectionist yet minimilist desires.

Also it is not possible or legal for a pc laptop to run mac osx.

If you have the money, then you'll never complain about apple stuff. If you don't have the money, bitch away...

Although, the difference is that Nintendo is not in the PC building industry, and thus can do whatever the heck they want.
The problem with Apple innovating is that lots of their innovations are similar to Microsoft's "innovations"; both can cause huge - and sometimes bad - disruptions to what could otherwise be a very comfortable future for PCs.
An example of such behaviour is here: http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/operaStuff/acid/
IE is different, but it is different in a very non-standard way. As a result, Opera 9 may very well pass the Acid 2 test, but web sites tailored specifically to IE will still have trouble with it.

Disrupting and innovating the personal computer industry can have very rough consequences for everyone, and it is usually not worth it.
Microsoft's move from NP-API to ActiveX for web plugins (done in IE 4, I believe?) was one such innovation that did not actually change anything for the better; it simply complicated the Internet.
(In fact, in my biased opinion, NP-API's ease of use and superior documentation makes it far better than Microsoft's precious ActiveX, and I'm sure it would have the same useability allowing for it to actually behave as a Windows component had Microsoft continued to support it).

Now, here's one reason why Apple could be seen as a bad thing:
They are severely limiting the expandability of personal computers. They may very well have a good OS (and I won't deny that), but the things have one single bay for CD/DVD, and nothing else. No floppy drive (which reminds me: What about Windows's preference to use floppies for boot disks?), no extra bays for when some new portable data storage technology pops up,

Thus, both Apple and Microsoft are killing growth in their own little ways.
Apple does it to hardware, MS does it to software.

Then again, Linux has always been better on the OS end, yet Linux uses two different desktops, Gnome and KDE, which both are far superior to MS. After all, Gnome's style of desktop isn't that far off from the Mac desktop at that. So you can have a great OS on the same platform that MS Windows runs on. Linux seems like Linus Torvalds had a better idea than Bill Gates ever did, and probably ever will. I only wish that there'd be a bigger and more popular community with Linux, that'll teach Bill Gate$ a lesson, stupid monopolist, ERMH!! Sorry, I just don't see Windows having any advantage over the other two OSes anytime soon, even with Vista/Longhorn.

Sorry, but the fact of the matter is that Linux is for computer-savvy geeks. It will never surpass Windows in the mainstream arena. End of story.

Well, there are versions of Linux which are made for the beginner, like Ubuntu and SUSE, at least with that setup, just as long as it has a Windows Manager, or a GUI, it'll be good for Internet, E-Mail, and light casual gaming, so it'll be a great advantage over Windows if you use a version of Linux that uses a GUI built onto it.

Even so, Windows is the 'industry standard', and I can't see that changing any time soon.

Yes, Linux is a great OS (so I've heard), but that doesn't count for much. Betamax was a better standard than VHS, and look what happened there...

thing is for light computer use even windows 3.1 would be rock solid if it were still supported. You barely need a computer for that :)

Problem with linux is that a OS is only as good as the sofware and hardware you can run on it. Both mac and linux have a limited in these areas, and lack standards and support when they do.

No one wants to buy Maya for linux and find that the developer stopped supporting it with redhat 6.6 or whatever it was. GIMP is ok, but no photoshop.

Until Mac and linux have industry standard apps, and popular games they are going to stay a niche. The best thing to happen to apple in some ways is their adopting low cost common PC hardware and let people run windows.

If I were to buy a mac, I'd most likely ignore OSX and simply use XP on it, assuming that drivers and such are properly supported.

Only reason why I wouldn't buy a mac is that the offered configurations are limited and don't cater to those who don't want to have to buy video hardware etc twice and add 30% to the price of their system off the bat.

On top of that Linux is far cheaper than Windows (if even free), and it doesn't seem to get attacked by all the bad stuff out there like Windows always does. It's built for Internet security by default, XP SP2's firewall's too weak, and get really hacked into bigtime. Linux is almost like Fort Knox, and MS Windows is almost like, well, a country bank in the middle of the day, when anyone can just walk in and walk off with a drawer full of loot without warning.

Also, Mac OS X is half the price of XP Home, so there you go again. Unfortunately, the only catch is that you can only use it to upgrade an existing Mac, but some sneaky person can take advantage of that open sale on Mac OS X, and try overriding Win XP and using Mac's OS instead, but you have to mod the wazoo out of your BIOS in order to make it happen.

Damn straight, for better or worse.

My first computer was one that I loved, though a "minority" one: great interface, wonderful performance, but almost no software was being released for it. For my next, faster, one, I considered the Amiga, which was clearly superior to the (then-)IBM PC. But, again, no software.

So, I sucked it up and bought a PC clone, which was clearly not the best platform, but it could run the games that I liked, and the marketplace is GOD. I learned a harsh, unpleasant lesson: if you're smart, you go with what's supported (whether it's the best or not). My PC didn't run games that I liked as well as they could have run on other platforms... but they were never released on those platforms. Sad but true: a sorry PC release is better than a theoretical release for a superior platform that never occurs.

Exactly. As I said, end of story. :)

[edit]
Always! Sorry Linux folk. Time to wake up and smell the coffee. :)

Also, if Bill Gates hadn't been such a monopolist, none of this would've even happened. He has to understand that he has to learn to accept competition, just like with game consoles, operating systems should also be more diversified for the game and software industry, that's where I'm getting at.

If I was Bill Gates, I'd do everything in my power to make sure Windows stays as King of the Hill. You can't slag him off for that.

Although dual-booting is gradually becoming less important too, given the recent advances in virtualization.

Especially with dual-core CPU's, it's expected that in the near future you'll be able to run two seperate operating systems *at the same time* on the same chip.

To an extend you can already do so through VMWare and the likes, but not yet entirely native.

If I were the "Martin Luther" of the day, I'd protest against Bill Gates, tack a document on their Redmond, WA lobby doors, and tell them what I would feel about Windows, and say that software should be free to be sold and distributed on any OS they should be allowed to choose, yet still maintain business in the market. Software shouldn't be confined to just one operating system any longer. Even since BlitzMax changed the way Blitz programmers are doing things, I can see more being done with triple-boot machines that run all three OSes on them. The PC user should be allowed to choose which OS to run on one given PC. If you choose Windows, okay, if you choose to run Mac OS X, then more power to you, if you choose Linux, then you can rule the world of computing, and develop for a game console. There's all sorts of different things to think about. I run dual-boot myself on both my desktop and notebook, so I have no trouble. If I legally was able to add OSX to the mix, then there we go.

Er, it is. It just so happens that Windows is king. There's always a king. If it wasn't Windows, it'd be some other OS, and we'd all be bitching about that. :)

its up to the developers to make the software run on other OS's. Most don't bother because they don't think they are viable platforms. Either because of the userbase being small or the wrong demographic. Or in Apples case in the past, through a lack of hardware.

It's only in the last couple of years that apple have even had capable 3D hardware, it's starting to get some attention now, and being able to run XP on mac's and PC's is probably beneficial to both MS and Apple.

On the linux front, linux needs to interest people outside of network system admins and geeks and not have so many different versions that aren't quite compatible with one another a lot of the time.

Also outside of business, Linux attracts people who expect things for free and aren't willing to pay large ammounts for software, doesn't make much sense for a commercial developer to support it when the hours could be better put into improving the product for the 99% of people that use the software on other platforms.

Look at the quotes at the top of this article:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18733820-36375,00.html
The recent quote is clearly visible here under "Word to the wise":
http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

Another interesting quote there:
"Sadly, Windows XP, and even the upcoming Vista, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS."
Which fails to take into account that Windows is not the only thing to use BIOS. Unlike Apple, Microsoft and other OS developers wish to keep things comfortable, and MS clearly does not wish to out-innovate. (And, while MS isn't directly mentioned there (they only say Windows), it should be noted that Microsoft is working with Intel to standardize EFI).
Also important to note that, unlike Apple, MS is not a hardware company which tethers software to their own hardware, and thus such innovation could easily be a COMPLETE mess without some careful planning.
Can anyone actually support the claim that EFI is industry standard? The link that they gave me sure doesn't. It sounds to me like it's not really there yet, considering that [a http://news.com.com/Writing+an+end+to+the+bio+of+BIOS/2100-1008_3-5131787.html]CNET News tells me: [/a]"The first EFI computer, a Gateway PC, went on sale in November [2003]. Others are expected to appear in 2004, with ever greater numbers coming in the following years. But not everyone is jumping on the EFI bandwagon. PC makers have been historically reluctant to change as their customers, especially businesses, often prefer stability."
GoogleFight also proves the claim wrong., even with the huge number of identical abbreviations saying "EFI". Okay, it's two years ago. Why, then, did my Google search barely tell me anything?
Besides, how can something be an industry-wide standard when the most popular OS doesn't use it?





Believe it or not: MS and Apple are both evil :P
(Unless, that is, you think that it is good business practice to behave like Jack Thompson on a field day).
I don't disagree with the idea that Windows is plagued by malware, and on a second read-through, that statement doesn't bother me. Much.
However, the shortsighted 'invincible Mac' thing is what bothers me there, since it's coming straight from the producers of the OS who should know darn well that they've just been lucky. I've always wondered whether or not the false sense of security was Angry Apple's own doing or that of its users. I guess I know now.

It would be a good lesson for various Mac users (noone from here, probably, so take no offense) to learn how to deal with malware, judging by Mac OS's two recent viruses (which Apple clearly has already forgotten about) that took advantage of Embarassing security holes and could easily have been a serious problem for them.




I dunno, maybe the inability to speak aloud is getting to me...

The mac has dozens of security holes that can compromise the system on a regular basis. they just don't seem to get taken advantage of.

Here's an interesting 2 page article about changing trends in security with the mac.

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11375

How long before we see viruses exclusively for Macs running Windows.

Don't care - I'm going to *enjoy* using my macbook when I get one. Isn't that the real point?

Yeah, if only MacBoook Pros wouldn't have been $2K - $3K USD, I'd go for an Intel Duo right now. However, for the budget freak, I'd go for the G4 iBook instead... They're between $1K - $2K USD easy. Even tho the G4 iBook isn't quite as efficient as the Intel MacBook or PowerBook, they're decent enough for the person that can't afford the high-end, latest components. Of course, a G4 is almost like Power PC's version of a Celeron anyway, but hey, you get what you pay for...

Yeah I suspect thats the only real reason people find fault: price...

Cos if you don't care, you don't complain...

Yeah, then you have the Mac Mini which is their budget desktop, however, unlike the iMac for the notebook, the Mac Mini does feature the Intel chip, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, you only have integrated graphics unlike an iMac or PowerMac. There's almost no possibility of fitting an average graphics card in that small of a platform (unless, of course, the Mac Mini uses notebook-style technology).