2006 to herald first Macs capable of running both Mac OS X and Windows

“Two worlds will collide in 2006, producing the first systems capable of running both Windows and Mac OS. (Maybe.) For years, computer users have sought a hybrid. Not a half-electric, half-gasoline motor vehicle, but a computer that combines the elegance of Apple’s software design with the raw horsepower of an Intel CPU. In 2006, that dream will come true,” PC World reports by way of The Washington Post.

“When Apple announced in June 2005 that it was abandoning IBM PowerPC processors in favor of an Intel engine, the blogosphere lit up at the possibility of buying brand-name PCs loaded with Apple’s Mac OS X. That won’t happen, at least not in a form that Apple will officially sanction. Apple will probably key the final release of its Mac OS for Intel processors to a specific piece of hardware included in the new Intel-based Macs,” PC World reports. “That means that the Apple family of computers will suddenly get a much needed power boost, initially in the notebook line. Held back primarily by the IBM-based chips’ lack of cooling capability, Apple has struggled to match the chip speed of its Intel-based Windows competitors. With Intel powering its products, Apple will no longer have to cope with this issue.”

“Don’t look for Apple to start marketing Windows-loaded computers anytime soon, though. That hybrid isn’t coming. But Apple’s next revision of its OS X operating system, code-named Leopard, is likely to arrive in late 2006, which is right around the time Windows Vista hits the shelves. With both platforms running on some of the same processors, the Apple-versus-Microsoft war could heat up,” PC World reports. “Also, look for some hacked-together systems (not released by Apple) in which an Apple computer runs Windows or dual-boots both OSs. Asked about that possibility when he made the Intel announcement, Apple CEO Steve Jobs seemed resigned to it. Apple will neither sell nor support such a thing, but ‘that doesn’t preclude someone from running [Windows] on a Mac,’ he said. ‘They probably will.'”

Full article here.

Advertisements: The New iMac G5 – Built-in iSight camera and remote control with Front Row media experience. From $1299. Free shipping.
The New iPod with Video.  The ultimate music + video experience on the go.  From $299.  Free shipping.

MacDailyNews Take: As we’ve asked previously, if you can buy a computer from Apple that can run both Mac OS X and Windows applications at native speeds, why would anybody buy a crippled Windows-only Dell, HP, Gateway, Acer, Sony, etc.? Once people can see Mac OS X vs. Windows latest right in front of their faces, you know what happens. Bye-bye Windows.

Steve Jobs thinks big, not small. We believe that Jobs considers Microsoft Windows’ dominance illegitimate, undeserved, and a severe hinderance to the promise of personal computers. Windows dulls creativity with its inherent medicocrity. We certainly believe that “the world’s” choice of Windows has been a huge mistake and that people are starting to wake up to that fact. Jobs is not “resigned” to the possibility of running Windows on a Mac. With the switch to Intel, he’s positioning the Mac to kill box assemblers like Dell and, eventually, Windows.

MacDailyNews Take:
With recent PowerPC announcements, why the heck did Apple decide to switch to Intel? – October 27, 2005
How Apple can win the OS war – October 19, 2005
Mac OS X Leopard to contain ‘Red Box’ for natively running Windows applications? – June 23, 2005
Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ ultimate goal: ‘to take back the computer business from Microsoft’ – June 16, 2005
Intel’s built-in virtualization tech could be one way to run Windows on Intel-based Apple Macs
Intel-based Macs running both Mac OS X and Windows will be good for Apple – 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
Microsoft: The safest way to run Windows is on your Mac – October 08, 2004

58 Comments

  1. If apple doesnt direcly support it, i fail to see how APPLE will kill windows. The normal computer user, and major companies will not do things that are overly complicated, nor Unsupported by the manuafacturer. I hope this makes apple take over, but I doubt it will.

  2. MDN: “Windows dulls creativity with its inherent medicocrity.”

    How does Windows dull the art I create, the animations I make, the designs I draw, the words I write?
    I own both Mac and PC – I am as creative on one compuer as the other.
    Both computer platforms are tools.
    The software (Maya, ZBrush, Photoshop, etc.) are more important than the OS running the computer.

  3. “the blogosphere lit up at the possibility of buying brand-name PCs loaded with Apple’s Mac OS X”

    Where has the blogosphere been? They can already do it. Just go to the Apple Store (or other reseller) and buy a Mac and you’ll get the following: A brand name (Apple) Personal Ccomputer loaded with Mac OS X.

    ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”LOL” style=”border:0;” />

  4. MDN your take is wrong on this.

    Apple is building up a suite of Apple OSX-only products so that the average computer user does not need Windows OS or Windows-based software.

    And if there is the possiblity that the next Apple OS can run Windows versions of the software, why would any software company go through the trouble of writing an OSX version of the software???

    And if AppleOSX on a Mactel runs Photoshop, Maya or any other software slower than the same program on a Windows computer – Apple will have serious problems.

    Steve is moving the computer/ipod game a different direction and that is toward the media hub. The piece of the puzzle that is missing for Apple is the game market. Without the gamers, Apple will never convince people to switch to the Mac.

  5. SJ: “… Apple will neither sell nor support such a thing…”

    Not supporting it won’t mean not being to run it. MacOS 9.1 was not supported by Apple for older Macs, but we know that older Macs did not have any problem running it. I installed 9.1 on an 8500 & 9600 and they actually ran better.

    And as far as hackers go, Maybe Steve is usingthem and their talents to further the MacOS installations and testing through the ‘back door’ without publicly supporting it. If true, not bad.

    2cents

  6. Apple is a successful and profitable company selling the Mac OS integrated with its own hardware. I like their products, i can afford their products, my needs are met by their products. Could someone please tell me why i should care or want Apple to try to make Macs that are compatible with Windows?

    The only consideration i can come up with is price. As we all know, comparable PCs already cost about the same as Macs, sometimes less (budget PCs), sometimes more (iMac). As such, I am skeptical that x86 Macs will all of a sudden drop dramatically in price … perhaps a couple of hundred dollars at most.

    Again i ask: why should i, as a Mac user, be interested in Macs that can run Windows apps? I have not needed them in the past: what will change in ’06?

  7. Reality Check asks why would developers go to the trouble of writing for OS X if OS X runs Windows apps?? Damn good question.

    I think one answer is that the system software is more advanced.

    There are code libraries in OS X which the developer can use with a minimum of effort – libraries to manipulate images, store data, handle text, work with multimedia files (audio, video etc)… the list is pretty big. It helps make writing software faster and reliable, providing you’ve taken the time to learn it (I’m talking about Cocoa btw.)

    If this system software and libraries don’t make a difference (to Windows), why aren’t there Delicious Library or Comic Book Life products first on Windows?

    Don’t forget, the “parents” of these tools were also used to create the World Wide Web on the NeXT computer.

    Sure, software later gets ported or ripped off, but that’s only AFTER the (shall we say) “proof of concept” was done on a Mac.

    Reality Check is correct though – games is one area where the Mac is let down in a big way.

    MW=program. Seriously bizarre.

  8. Why would someone buy a computer that is Windows only when Macs are running both?

    Because Windows computers are cheaper and some people don’t have any use for Mac software. My school provides free antivirus software. In addition, I have friends who use the computer only to surf specific websites, write e-mails, and write essays. As a result, they are careful not to attract viruses and spyware. Their computers run just as well as a Mac. They don’t like the Mac interface (face it; it’s not for everyone).

    There will always be a market for Windows just as there will always be a market for Macs. Stop heralding the end of Microsoft; it will never happen. What we can see is more parity in the market share.

  9. Queeezie: “How does Windows dull the art I create, the animations I make, the designs I draw, the words I write?
    I own both Mac and PC – I am as creative on one compuer as the other.
    Both computer platforms are tools.
    The software (Maya, ZBrush, Photoshop, etc.) are more important than the OS running the computer.”

    Windows “dulls creativity” when you spend most of your time battling spyware, viruses, constant crashing and a poor UI.

  10. Reality Check asked “… why would developers go to the trouble of writing for OS X if OS X runs Windows apps?”

    Take a look at Aperture and compare it to any so-called rival.

    Aperture uses CoreGraphics, which is built into the OS. There are other examples of where built-in OS X code can make the job of the software author easier and also produce a better result that’s more consistent.

    GarageBand does a similar thing by exploiting CoreAudio routines.

    Those who merely port from PC to OS X always miss out on advantages like that and their software will always be poorer as a result.

    As far as dual boot OS X / Windows computers are concerned. it will either be companies buying MacTels and setting them up with Windows too, or in the longer run, Apple may licence other manufacturers to sell Apple-authorised motherboards which can then be branded as something like an ‘HP Mac-compatible’. By selling them with Windows pre-installed, they will be easier to become accepted in some business environments.

    I don’t see OS X replacing Windows in the mainstream, but I do see a huge potential for OS X to be much more widely adopted.

  11. Queezie, Windows does dull the creativeness of the average user not pros like you that work in Photoshop. The ease at which one can manage and create personal digital content is umatched. There are also so many things that can be done with Mac OS X on a daily basis that are more difficult to do on a PC. I work IT in a Windows shop and believe me it takes 2 to 3 times longer to do certain things in that environment. The average Windows user is stuck fighting spyware and viruses while we Mac users are free to think about actually doing things with the computer. Windows also slows down the average user with it’s wizards and verbose dialogue windows. With the Mac, you just do it. The one thing I like from the enterprise side is Active Directory but OS X Server is not far behind right now.

  12. “And if AppleOSX on a Mactel runs Photoshop, Maya or any other software slower than the same program on a Windows computer – Apple will have serious problems.”

    Actually the makers of those programs will have a problem. Steve seems to be making it known that if you make the Mac a second class citizen, we will make your software irrelevant. Aperture is a warning to Adobe not to screw around with photoshop.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.