“Apple’s startling announcement that it will begin a transition away from PowerPC chips to Intel-made processors has left Mac fans’ heads spinning, and not just because a former ‘enemy’ of the Mac is now counted among its allies. Many details about the transition are unclear or flat-out missing — after all, Apple said it won’t be shipping any Intel-based Macs until next year. And let’s be honest — computer chips are not exactly the simplest topic under the sun,” Jason Snell writes for Macworld. “To help you sort out this situation, here’s what you need to know about the Apple-Intel announcement — in the form of frequently-asked questions.”
Three of Snell’s Q&A’s have come up often here on MDN recently:
Will any PC be able to run Mac OS X for Intel?
Apple says no. Our guess is that some enterprising hacker may be able to get it to work, but we’d expect that if anyone can get OS X to run on PC hardware, it will be a laborious process, and the end result may not be a particularly stable system. You certainly won’t be able to go out, buy OS X, stick the install DVD in a Dell PC, and have it just work. Apple intends Mac OS X to only run on Apple hardware.
Will my Intel-based Mac be able to run Windows?
It seems likely, although Apple won’t support it. Someone will probably figure a way to install Windows on a Mac system so that you can choose to boot into either OS X or Windows. In addition, consider a future version of Virtual PC that lets you run PC applications at full speed, on a window within your Mac (or on a second monitor). There are some intriguing possibilities here for Mac users who must use Windows applications some of the time.
But if all Macs one day will be able to run Windows, won’t application developers stop creating Mac versions of their programs?
It’s possible, but not very likely. Mac users are Mac users because they want to run software in the Mac interface. The large software companies that publish programs on the Mac understand that, and so do the small Mac developers who are making the coolest OS X apps around. I’d tell you that the middle-range developers with a flagging commitment to the Mac would be the ones most worth worrying about, but honestly, the Mac OS X transition already shook most of them out of the Mac market.
Snell full article is very much worth reading as it answers just about any question you might have about Apple’s Intel move. Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: We’ve come to the conclusion that Apple’s move to Intel could benefit Apple’s hardware business in a major way, especially if new Macs are capable of running both Mac OS X and Windows natively (no emulation like Virtual PC). The average (Windows-only) person would be much more likely to buy a Mac and sample Mac OS X and less likely to buy a box assembled by, say, Dell or Gateway, that would be limited to only running Windows. And, once people sample Mac OS X and can compare it to Windows side-by-side, they usually become Mac users. Apple will not allow Mac OS X to run on generic PCs without a licensing deal in place. In other words, people won’t be able to buy Mac OS X and load it on their generic Dell PCs, but they would be able to buy Windows and load it on their Macs. This is potentially a big problem for the Windows-dependent box assemblers like Dell and the rest. Why buy a Dell when you can get two (or more: Linux, etc.) computers for the price of one with a Mac?
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Why buy a Dell when Apple ‘Macintel’ computers will run both Mac OS X and Windows? – June 08, 2005
Windows users who try Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger might not want to go back – June 07, 2005
it’s all doublespeak.
One question I have, is why would anyone want to run a full version of windows on an Intel based Mac? Seriously, I’d much rather have a version of Wine working in OS X and run apps in OS X independently of Windows, if possible. Wouldn’t that make more sense? Other than games…I don’t see a need for it.
Ummm, if it’s not as cheap as Dell, it won’t outsell Dell. Good luck.
Though this is good new for Apple, it seems as if this will also benefit Microsoft as they have one more hardware manufacturer (Apple) that can now run their software.
Not so good for Dell, Hp and the like…
It’s true! There’s a guy over at xlr8yourmac.com that says the developer boxes can run Windows. Go check it.
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
MW: mother … of …. LOL!
Despite many programs available for the Mac, there are still a TON that don’t.
OS X is not doubt superior, but please take off the Steve Jobs Warping Glasses…
Yes, you can use Virtual PC, but some peeps just don’t wanna deal with hassles.
This exact point (will devs continue to write Mac software if OS X can run windows apps full speed) came up in the comments just a few article ago and the same kind of conclusions were reached. (by me for one
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool smile” style=”border:0;” /> )
There are still way to many ways things could go and still way too many variables to say for sure yet but I for one would back Steve’s machevellian streak any day and think this will turn out to be a really good move for Apple.
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/apples_intel_shift_could_result_in_market_share_gain/
DakRoland, my company has an app that we made that only runs on windows. It will be a very big benefit for me to have a Mac that can run windows if need be. Of course 99.9 percent of the time I would be on OS X though.
I don’t like dual booting, Wine would be cool. Am I wrong in thinking that most of the work has already been done to port WINE to os X?
“Despite many programs available for the Mac, there are still a TON that don’t. “
And many of those should be immediately deposited in the trash, because that’s what they are. Crappy apps do not linger or even show up for the Mac platform because of the smaller market. Word of mouth in the Mac community quickly basnishes the crap apps where they belong.
The Glass is half full.
I only have one Windows app I need to run, so I’d much prefer to run it using Darwine instead of a Mac dual booted in Windows (no $$ to M$). But right now, Darwine is not yet ready for prime time (for any non-geek consumer).
I’m hoping the chip shift will speed this project up considerably:
http://darwine.opendarwin.org//
Any developers out there want to join that club??
I love the idea of someone having the ability to switch back and forth between a 5 year old buggy, virii infested OS and…… Tiger.
It’s the kind of switch back and forth that.. over time.. becomes ‘forth’.
10.4.
For most highend PC gaming, don’t you need Microsoft’s Direct X framework? There are some things I currently use PCs for even though a Mac G5 is my main desktop. Gaming is number one, and I wouldn’t mind being able to double boot into Windows. Can you access the power of the latest games within WINE? and without MS Windows?
I’m surprised no one has mentioned the OS/2 effect. When IBM constructed the OS/2 operating system for its PCs (about 1987), the hardware IBM people insisted that OS/2 run Windows 3.1 and DOS programs natively, thought the OS/2 people disagreed. The hardware people won.
OS/2 was the best microcomputer OS out there at the time, better even than Mac OS (IMO), running on the most respected platform. Yet it failed because developers never bothered to write for it, they just wrote Windows programs. The same will happen if sufficiently many Intel-based Macintosh runs Windows. Why bother porting a game from the Windows API to cocoa when gamers will be running Windows anyway?
The Intel-based Mac will not grow as fast as feasible. Valuable programs like AutoCad and Adobe FrameMaker will stay Windows-only.
Apple is a two-part computer firm: hardware and software. Running Windows helps the hardware side. But it does not help the software side. Ultimately the Intel-based Mac will grow because of its software (IMO). Running Windows on Intel-based Macs strengthens Microsoft while doing little for Tiger/Leopard penetration.
I agree, this could be a huge boost for hardware sales. Especially so in the corporate environment where companies investing in the future may choose to purchase Macs so that they can have more OS choices without having to switch hardware.
And regardless of what “hammer” says, there are many apps out there that businesses rely on that are only available for Windows. Some software companies simply choose to ignore the Mac market, many times because there is not enough demand to meet the programming costs. It does not mean that the software is crap.
Bob C.
OS/2 had no installed base. They couldn’t get started from scratch with the limitations you listed. Understandible. Apple doesn’t have that problem. ADDING Windows capabilities, as an option mind you, only makes Macs more enticing to a larger group beyond its typical customer. I don’t see how Intel Macs can cut into OSX’s user base.
Who needs to boot into Windows?
How about all those biznizis’ who have said they can’t possibly switch to Macs since they have all these legacy Windows apps they need to run?
Apple takes the Mac to the Enterprize.
Once OSX is running on Intel, Vmware could release a version of their software for OSX that would allow you to run almost any OS you wanted to as long as it was supportad an x86 based and you had enough memory in your Mac…all at the same time and almost full speed. There are some performance hits.. While this wouldn’t work for gaming, consoles are almost certainly the way to go for that down the road..
I have to wonder. Mac on Linux runs OSX quite happily on Yellow Dog. Surely once the i386 (ho ho) version of OSX is shipping, someone will port MoL to Fedora (same code base), and everyone will be able to run Mac apps regardless of hardware.
How is Apple going to control this? Hope that people stay away from Linux? Or introduce software activation?
Mac Developers, read this:
I will never run Windows on my Mactel machine. I will continue to support Apple, Mac OS X and Mac developers with my money ($$$).
It’s a year until Leopard is released to the developer community, but in that year Apple could do lots of work to make Wine run flawlessly within it.
Regarding MDN “take” — I think people will still buy Windows-only Dell boxes because they’ll be cheaper hardware than Intel inside Mac hardware.
Personally, I’ll continue to buy Mac because its better, not because it will be able to run Windows, too. That has no appeal to me.
Dave H: why can’t you boot todays G5 and G4 on OS 9? It is the very same PowerPC than before. Sure Mac users that wanted to run OS 9 on the G5 could hack and get in run on it… Nope. Same thing for OS X on another Intel PC.
The CPU is not the only factor in the equation.
Artisticulated, I hope you’re right. I doubt Windows will cut into Mac OS X’s software base. I was suggesting it might prevent the base from growing.
One thing is for sure. Some enterprising person or company is going to create commercial software that will enable the effect of VPC, with no emulation slowdown. It can’t be that hard.
In fact that enterprising company might be Microsoft itself. That way they’ll get a copy of Windows sold on Intel-based Macintoshes.
The opinion are similar to the opinion piece from a blog on macsurfer.
http://timcoughlin.typepad.com/tim_coughlins_blog/2005/06/mactel_the_best.html
I would tend to agree that this is the best thing to happen in a long time. With regards the concerns about developers not making Mac versions it would seem unlikely to be a problem, as they do not have to do much to change their code to make it Mac native. Well, thats how I understand it anyway.
Bill