Apple last week announced their intention switch from IBM’s Power PC architecture to Intel’s x86 models. The first Intel computers are expected to be available before June 2006 and Apple’s entire product line will have switched architectures by 2007, the company said at its annual World Wide Developers Conference.
“Apple could use the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip to ensure that only Mac computers can run its OS X operating system, according to a news analysis from Gartner. The TPM is an open industry standard governed by the Trusted Computing Group, a non-profit organisation which develops security standards,” Tom Sanders reports for vnunet.
“With Macs and Windows machines sharing the same hardware platform, users could theoretically install any software on the PCs, running Windows on a Mac or OS X on a Dell,” Sanders reports. “But Apple has stated that it would prevent users from installing OS X on non-Mac hardware. An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment for this story, saying that the company it is not yet ready to reveal product specifications.”
“The upcoming Longhorn version of Windows relies on the TPM for a technology dubbed Secure Startup, which blocks access to the computer if the content of the hard drive is compromised. This prevents a laptop thief swapping out the hard drive, or booting the system from a floppy disk to circumvent security features,” Sanders reports. “Using the TPM is not without controversy, however. The module has raised privacy concerns, and has been criticised because it could be used to enforce digital rights management technologies.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: The key is for Apple to do as Apple VP Phil Schiller said, let only Macs run Mac OS X and don’t do anything to disallow Windows from running on Intel-based Macs — preferably in a protected environment similar to VirtualPC, but without the need for emulation; running natively on the Intel CPU. Then computer buyers can ask themselves “Why buy a Dell when Apple ‘Macintel’ computers will run both Mac OS X and Windows? This accomplishes two things: it sells more Apple hardware because buyers will like getting “two computers for the price of one” and it gets Mac OS X into the homes of Windows-only PC users. And once they get a look of Mac OS X, you just know what’ll happen next.
After Jobs’ presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. “That doesn’t preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will,” he said. “We won’t do anything to preclude that.” However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers’ hardware. “We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac,” he said.
In addition, Thomas Claburn has reported for InformationWeek, “David Moody, VP of worldwide Macintosh product marketing at Apple, says emphatically that [Apple’s decision to move to Intel] does not mean that anyone with an Intel-based PC will be able to install the Mac OS X. However, he notes that while Apple will not sell or support other operating systems with next year’s Intel-based Macs, the company has no plans to prevent users from concurrently installing a second operating system like Windows XP. The possibility of running Mac OS X and Windows on the same Intel box may make Apple hardware more appealing to enterprise customers.”
Related MacDailyNews articles:
The OS Wars heat up: Apple paves way to release Mac OS X for off-the-shelf x86 hardware – June 14, 2005
Apple Computer attacks Microsoft Windows with two-page Mac OS X Tiger print ad in Time (with images) – June 14, 2005
Dvorak predicts Mac OS X for generic x86, Apple ‘Office’ suite, dawn of Mac viruses and spyware – June 13, 2005
Report: Apple Mac OS X 10.4.1 for Intel hits piracy sites – June 11, 2005
Intel-based Macs running both Mac OS X and Windows will be good for Apple – June 10, 2005
Is Apple setting up the ultimate “Switcher” campaign by preparing to let Mac OS X speak for itself? – June 10, 2005
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
iPod success opens door to Mac OS X on Intel – March 04, 2004
I know what i’d choose in a shootout between Dull and Apple
if people thought “I could get a Dell and run Windows or a Mac and run Windows and Mac OS” they just might go for a Mac. unfortunately, most people don’t think so much. they’ll just look at the stickers and say… “Gee, I dont need to run TWO operating systems. I have enough problems keeping one running. I’ll get the cheep Dell/Gateway/Wal-Mart box.”
fortunately, i’m not one of those people. i’ll get the Mac and skip Windows. altogether. although Darwine (http://darwine.opendarwin.org//) sounds interesting…
but then, with Mac on Intel that kinda takes the wind out of Darwine, doesn’t it?
lookit… first again!
awwww, rats!
Let Windows boot, but for God’s sake don’t give it access to any networking hardware.
If you let windows boot on a Mac you have windows problems.
This dual boot business has the potential to kill the non-Apple Mac software business. Why bother porting an application to OS X when the customer can simply load the Windows version? Performance-wise OS X applications will be at a disadvantage for at least the next two years because they will have to include PPC code to make them compatible with PPC Macs while Windows applications will continue to be written for only one processor type. Having said that, a speed penalty is a small price to pay for using a safer, more stable and mature operating system.
Sol, we have VirtualPC now. No one has accused it of stifling the Mac software business, have they? How is making the running of Windows programs a little smoother and faster going to change anything?
Remember what happened to IBM’s OS/2? OS/2 was the superior operating system for Intel hardware in comparison to Windows, but OS/2 had a “compatability box” that ran Windows software as good or better than Windows itself. What happened? No one would write native OS/2 software, but just used Windows software on OS/2.
If the new Mactel has such a good “Windows compatability box”, then very few software developers will be able to justify the cost of developing actual Mac OS X programs, but will just tell their customers to use the Windows version inside of the “compatability box”. Eventually the Mactel is nothing more than a “Windows compatability box” with NO native Mac OS X software and at that point Mac OS X and the Mactel platform are dead.
SW Dev: OS/2 had no real market, that is customer used to it. It was used by Windows users in majority. So, why a Windows user willing to use a Windows program on its computer should have chosen OS/2 to do that?
What was the point?
The situation is entirely different. Apple has a customer base that want to run programs for the Mac with the look and feel of the Mac. I would run a Windows program only if I entirely NEEDED it and had no OS X native counterpart.
SW developers producing Mac versions of their product know perfectly well that their customers are NOT waiting to run the Windows version of their product. They want the OS X version. If they stop releasing a Mac version what does that do for their sales? For the most they lose a chunk of profit in that angry Mac users for the most will get another Mac product to fulfill the same task. Their product is going to sell LESS not more.
Remember, they know Mac users account for 16% of customers in the US and buy 30% more sw than Windows users.
Instead, having a OS X version is going to be much easier with Mac on Intels, so much so that releasing both versions at same will become almost effortless. We will see more sw titles on OS X once on Intel than EVER before. Most Windows-only programs will instead start being released on the same DVD for both platforms. Why? because it will be done at little to no effort for lots to be gained. Something that today’s situation is not possible as to port from Windows to OS X requires lots of work and if you do not know that there is demand you will not do it.
With Mac on Intel, there will be no reason to wait and see whether there will be demand, you’ll do it anyway: cost practically nothing to do and same masterization. Low cost, hefty potential return. If not, nothing to lose.
The section of developers that risk their job security is the ‘porting teams’ if they are independent. Currently there are sw houses that essentially work getting Windows versions of others and produce the Mac version.
When the “others”, whoever they are, will discover that porting does not require to pay a third party to do the job and that most can be done in-house without big economical effort they’ll start doing themselves.
Game producers like Aspyr already – in interviews – talk about an era where Windows and Mac release of a product will be done at same time, every time. Why? Because, what the heck. If it sells more money, if not, it has costed a dime anyway.
Funny you see it the opposite way.
VirtualPC on the G5 runs OK for the casual Windows program. The only to really suffer are games. Today situation is the one you describe: “Sorry, no plans for OS X version, get VirtualPC”.
Tomorrow’s is “Have you tried already our OS X version already?”
Why? again, it’s economics. Low cost, no risk involved, comes with “other expenses” voice.
Today is economics again: Hefty costs, risky. Needs a business plan and an assured market.
There will be no compatibility box. Phil Schiller was clear about it. People will be able to boot into Windows and run Windows apps, but with all the inherent aggravation of working with windows.
This means, nobody will accept windows software for everyday use. Who wants to reboot every ten minutes?
But it means that, for specialised tasks, i.e. controlling instruments that only run under MS compatible driver software, you can reboot your mac under windows, with TCP-IP disabled. When that task is completed, you reboot again under OS-X and enjoy smooth sailing. It also means that you don’t have to have a butt-ugly Dell box in your lab anymore.
‘Keep OSX off non Macs’
Not gonna happen. Simple as. Once there is an Intel version out there, it will run on Intel boxes. All of them. No hacking protection has ever worked, neither will it this time.
Apple better realize that and provide a version people can buy, rather than pull off a P2P.
RE: Hybrid
HARDWARE PROTECTION WILL WORK!
You can bet your ass that APPLE WILL MAKE SURE THAT OS X will only work on Apple hardware!
They will put in things like if someone takes out OS validation chip off the motherboard the OS won’t be able to launch or maybe the next time you start up the pc the OS de-installs itself (after a warning window of course! – saying ‘Your pc is missing hardware that the OS needs to access – if this hardware is not located upon next start-up, the OS will self de-install).
Hybrid,
Apple made so that from one day to the other the VERY SAME PPC based Macs could not boot on OS 9 anymore. Than declared OS 9 death.
What do you see inherently different to make the future different from the past? There will be no technical difficulty for Apple to make OS X require all the rest there is in an Apple computer then just checking whether the CPU is an Intel one. All the rest that will not be present in a Dull PC made by whoever.
Remember: Windows itself requires you to re-license the product if you change too much hardware in a PC: you will not be able to boot again unless you pay the license again.
It is rather easy to block the OS from working unless a specific hw configuration is present. I’d risk to say that no PC could come close to an Apple computer hw configuration. Same CPU? Not enough.
You can also bet that this ‘Hardware/chip OS X validation’ only on Apple branded pcs will also have a non-standard mounting on the motherboard, and it may even be a unique shape, so that it will be impossible to get the chip and install it on a Dell or other windblows crap piece of cheap hardware.
Believe it or not Apple are NOT stupid – they are covering their ass at evry stage of this and discussed this 100s of times in meetings over the last 5 years.
and it seems that Apple realized that so well that there is no doubt among Apple representatives that Leopard will run on anything but an Apple certified hardware.
Actually, since they used that term “Apple certified hardware” I wonder whether there will be models (Ferrari laptop anyone?) non-Apple made, allowed to have OS X installed.
Windows does require that, yes. Unless you have a certain version (which I have seen and installed, strictly for curiosity’s sake of course. In day to day life I use a perfectly legal one – it’s not worth the risk to me) that simply circumvents the whole licensing issue. Install, run a little ‘patch’ et voila, no more nagging. Put the harddisk in another PC and XP booted happily.
The problem, as I see it, is that the software depends on the signals it gets from the hardware. Mimicking these signals, or somehow bending the software in such a way that all signals are OK, or whatever other cheats a creative hacker can come up with, I’m sure it can be done.
How? Beats me, I’m a mere user, not a programmer/hacker, but I’ve seen dongle (= hardware)-protected software cracked. I remain confident: once ‘iNtel-OSX’ is out there, it will be hacked/cracked/opened.
The other hardware? By nature, the Mac hardware is very easily identified/unique. It takes only one set of drivers to emulate the real thing.
Mind you, I consider this a blessing in disguise. Your average user of the future, the kiddie who will never buy OSX but who will gladly use/try a cracked version will get in touch with OSX. Once he grows up and is a professional, he’ll at least know about the alternative to the ‘one OS to rule them all’.
“Performance-wise OS X applications will be at a disadvantage for at least the next two years because they will have to include PPC code to make them compatible with PPC Macs…”
Enter “Universal Binaries”. OS X Apps will not take a performace hit. In fact, with the overall stability of the OS and protected memory, etc, OS X apps will have the advantage. The only performance hit will be apps that are not using Universal Binaries and rely on “Rosetta”.
Different students in the whole world understand that the term papers writing service could supply us with the grant writing. Hence, this could be not hard to buy papers online.