[kick52]

the mac won't die. the reason we all have macs is because we dont want to use windows, so it doesnt matter if we run an emulator to run some windows programs, because we are using macs.

and anyway, even if vista does look nice, who could turn away from the beauty of macs and os x?

[kick52]

the mac won't die. the reason we all have macs is because we dont want to use windows, so it doesnt matter if we run an emulator to run some windows programs, because we are using macs.

and anyway, even if vista does look nice, who could turn away from the beauty of macs and os x?

[kick52]

the mac won't die. the reason we all have macs is because we dont want to use windows, so it doesnt matter if we run an emulator to run some windows programs, because we are using macs.

and anyway, even if vista does look nice, who could turn away from the beauty of macs and os x?

[manf0001]

Hey People, now that Apple is on intel it will be possible to run Windows Apps. Not with Vmware, as there is no mention that they will make a Mac version. But it will be with Codeweavers Crossover Office www.codeweavers.com.

When Apple first Announced moving to intel codeweavers were right on top to announce that they will be coming out with a Intel Mac version.

Crossover Office has Wine incorporated into it, infact Codeweavers and Wine work very closely together. I have been using Crossover for a while as I am also a Linux user on my Grey Box. It is a great program and can not think of anything else to use to run my Windows Apps with in Linux, and I can't wait to try it on the new Intel Macs.

Another site to check out is www.Transgaming.com They make a Linux program called Cedega that runs alot of popular Direct3D/OpenGL Windows Games, and it works wounders. I can play some of my games that run with the Quake 3 and Unreal egines nice and smoothly. I sent an email to them about porting a Intel Mac version and they said that they don't know yet. "We want to see if it will be worth it." Well I'm sure it will be. Check it out and send them an email demanding that they port it to the new Intel Macs.

Cheers Guys.

[Helmling]

I don't understand why people want to run Windows apps.

The stuff that comes free on a new Mac is better than anything out on PC for the thigns they do.

The only PC software I ever missed after switching was a few games, but that's hardly worth crying over.

[Brass]

Originally Posted by Helmling

I don't understand why people want to run Windows apps.

The stuff that comes free on a new Mac is better than anything out on PC for the thigns they do.

The only PC software I ever missed after switching was a few games, but that's hardly worth crying over.

Two reasons:

1. There are a few (very few) Windows-specific applications for which there is no Mac OS X equivalent.

2. There are some people who need to use a Windows application (even if there IS a better Mac OS X equivalent) to have file compatibility with their colleagues/peers and/or support in their workplace.

Ie, it's usually not a matter of WANT to run windows apps, but is sometimes a matter of HAVE TO run windows apps.

[fred66]

Originally Posted by Brass

Two reasons:

1. There are a few (very few) Windows-specific applications for which there is no Mac OS X equivalent.

2. There are some people who need to use a Windows application (even if there IS a better Mac OS X equivalent) to have file compatibility with their colleagues/peers and/or support in their workplace.

Ie, it's usually not a matter of WANT to run windows apps, but is sometimes a matter of HAVE TO run windows apps.

'Better' is a very subjective term ... :-)

There are quite a lot of applications for which there are no Mac equivalent. It is often the case that a program does exist for the Mac, it doesn't have anything like the flexibility of the Windows app. Personal finane apps are a good case in point; nothing on the Mac can match MSMoney (especially if you're in the UK).

99% of the time, the Mac app will look better and be much nicer to work with, but I end up using the Windows app because of missing functions on the Mac.

For me 'better' means 'being able to do everything I need to do'.

[ericssonboi]

Taken from Unsanity..
http://www.unsanity.org/archives/000445.php

I should also mention that these new ICBMs from Apple use EFI instead of the standard PC BIOS. According to various documents from Microsoft, Windows for x86 machines does not support booting from EFI (HTML via Google) and won't until Windows Vista is released. As far as I know, no consumer PC ships with EFI support (why bother if Windows doesn't support it, right?). However, the Itanium machines require EFI. This has two "problems". One, you may not be able to dual boot Windows until Vista is released. Two, it'll be significantly harder to make OS X run on a stock PC without EFI.

[inkhead]

unsanity is just plain wrong, EFI has a BIOS emulation mode. It will take a little bit of screwing around but my money is on XP working within 2 weeks of the nwe powerbooks shipping.

Also once windows vista ships all bets are off, Windows Vista supports EFI out of the bo.

Originally Posted by ericssonboi

Taken from Unsanity..
http://www.unsanity.org/archives/000445.php

I should also mention that these new ICBMs from Apple use EFI instead of the standard PC BIOS. According to various documents from Microsoft, Windows for x86 machines does not support booting from EFI (HTML via Google) and won't until Windows Vista is released. As far as I know, no consumer PC ships with EFI support (why bother if Windows doesn't support it, right?). However, the Itanium machines require EFI. This has two "problems". One, you may not be able to dual boot Windows until Vista is released. Two, it'll be significantly harder to make OS X run on a stock PC without EFI.

[cgmpowers]

I know I'm probably repeating what's been said but running Windows under OS X or even if OS X can run Windows Apps w/out VPC then it'd be amazing if its full speed.

My wife loves her Powerbook but is one of these people that plays these little puzzle games... She is tremendously frustrated that there's thousands of software titles for the PC but only a handful for the Mac in comparison. Its been a real discussion in our house on software she'd like to get onto the Mac but cannot. Zuma for the Mac took almost 2 years to port over to the OS X from Windows and that's just a small puzzle game--we're not talking Quake or Sims2 (which usually take a year).

Number one reason people buy PCs over Macs is software... Sure we have our pro apps, we have our wonderful iLife apps but when you go into the apple store month after month and see only 1 or 2 new titles a month...and PCs have HUNDREDS of new titles a month, people take notice.

My son wanted a laptop for school. Now his is the rare school that's all PC but that's okay. He had his choice but selected PC because he didn't want to be left out by having a Mac. The year and a half he's had the Mac...he's had to restore that machine three times because of various problems (viruses, sluggishness, etc). About three months ago he said he wished he had gotten an iBook or Powerbook for school.. He uses Word and Dreamweaver (we own both for PC and Mac) and that's it. If he had been able to run VPC (fast, not slow) on it with the ability to play high end games not yet proted to OS X then he would have definately had purchased the machine I knew he should have originally gotten.

Christopher Powers

[production_coordinator]

The real surprise will be... Mac applications running on Windows via Yellow Box enabled Quicktime/iTunes.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Helmling

I don't understand why people want to run Windows apps.

The stuff that comes free on a new Mac is better than anything out on PC for the thigns they do.

The only PC software I ever missed after switching was a few games, but that's hardly worth crying over.

Nobody WANTS to run Windows applications... most people are forced to run such programs. Also, there are a number of programs that are Windows only... especially when you get in to specialty areas.

[sushiism]

Originally Posted by kick52

and anyway, even if vista does look nice, who could turn away from the beauty of macs and os x?

I was disappointed in Vista, it just looks another step up from XP
XP was bitmaps hacked in place of the old window 2K controls basically and it RELALY felt tacked on
Vista is a step up from that, you still see **** from 2K generation windows creepy through so now you have a mix of the 2K icons and look (aliased, copland wannabe but ****), the fisher price fantastic XP icons and now a 3rd visual style
its such a mishmash of feces.

In response to cgmpowers: Funnily enough the reason I buy macs is software too things like CSS Edit, Adium, Apples Colour Picker, Safari, Omnigraffle, Omnioutliner, Subethaedit, transmit, etc all these sort of apps show brilliantly how much more capable mac developers are. I mean its probably just because they use macs all the time so are more exposed to decent UI design so that shows through their work as bad design sticks out while on the windows side pretty much everything microsoft product is an interface nightmare and the respected 3rd party apps are no better

[awarenessengine]

As we all know, OS X is a multi-tasking operating where even multiple users' tasks can be running at the same time via Fast user-switching (see Jobs' iPhoto demo when he shares an album).

I have come to think that getting Windows app's to work within OSX would be too difficult due to the API issues already mentioned, however, it is highly likely that Windows could be run as a foreign User type process from OSX and switching between the two operating systems simply by the touch of a key as you do for multiple users.

I doubt Apple will do this, perhaps a 3PD or even Microsoft with VPC.

[IamBob]

I'll probably use whatever's free and mostly works and I don't mind waiting. My mom is not-so-patiently waiting for VPC.

Anyway, there's really no incentive for Apple to get it done. If I was S.J., I'd drop a token contribution on the WINE folks and leave it at that. Maybe give them a direct link to a handful of Apple's staff and a few iMacs or something.

Microsoft will get there eventually, whether that's via VPC, a special build of XP w/ MacIntel compatibility or Vista. Not necessarily in that order...

A fix for XP would be quickest/easiest if all they were concerned about was having a version of Windows available for MacIntels.

VPC is the better solution for everyone. MS gets double dough (VPC+Win=$$). For the users; no dual-boot, somewhat safer, etc.

Vista, well..who cares.

[dru]

Originally Posted by inkhead

unsanity is just plain wrong, EFI has a BIOS emulation mode. It will take a little bit of screwing around but my money is on XP working within 2 weeks of the nwe powerbooks shipping.

EFI *can* have a BIOS emulation mode but Apple certainly has no use for it with no legacy issues so they probably didn't bother. Some enterprising hackers in the community will probably see this has a challenge but I have a sad feeling more effort will be expended on getting the official Mac OS X "cracked" to run on generic PCs.

Also once windows vista ships all bets are off, Windows Vista supports EFI out of the bo.

Vista is not shipping yet. EFI support, true but that doesn't mean it'll run on the new Mactels

[timh]

Here are a few good reasons for a dual boot computer.

Imagine you are an accounting firm with clients who use Mac's and some that use windows. It sure would be nice to work with the proprietary data formats that are not cross platform and only have one computer on your desk or to lug around. Quickbooks is one glaring example. Intuit states that the data files are cross platform but not if you use more than just the rudimentary features. There are numerous other accounting apps that either have the same problem or only exist on one platform with no way to read or write to the data file on any other platform.

What if you use proprietary software that only runs in a Windows environment that you have to use for a given purpose yet you really would rather use OSX for everything else you do with a computer. Once again, dual boot solves this problem without having to use more than one computer.

How about someone who does tech support? If you want to support Mac's, PC's, *nix etc... it sure would be nice to be able to do so with running software for all OS’s natively on just one computer without the horrendous loss of performance when using emulators like Virtual PC.
An IT department for an organization that works in a multi-platform organization should look at this possibility and be salivating for the solution. Imagine having only one spec for laptop hardware and only one spec for desktop hardware yet these two configurations will support all of the operating systems the users you support need to use or want to use and probably use without your blessing. The number of part numbers you would stock for break fix situations would drop.

The prospect of this being a reality should have many of you excited. Think about it. You get to use the best designed hardware yet run any OS you want to or need to plus get to use OSX for all the functions that it does so elegantly.

[IamBob]

Dual booting sucks. By definition, when you want to use a different OS you have to re-boot into that OS.

(I hope) VPC for MacIntels won't be an emulator like you're used to them. It's more like Classic - the host machine is the same as (or insanely close to) what's being "emulated".

The option to dual-boot is cool but I'd much rather run Windows inside OSX (again, think Classic).

[Chuckit]

I have no doubt either Microsoft or VMware is going to release virtualization software for OS X.

[shunt]

Originally Posted by IamBob

Dual booting sucks......

...been trying to say that, glad someone agrees.

[Simon]

I agree too. I used to dual-boot XP and Scientific Linux. It's a PITA. I'd rather have two boxes than have to reboot just to switch between OSes.

Here's another vote for virtualization.