“For as long as I can remember, there has been a battle of operating systems. Which operating system is better, Microsoft or Apple? The debate rages on but what we do know is this: Currently, your organization does not have the ability to dual-boot a Windows and an Apple operating system,” Steven Warren writes for CIO Update. “Well, times are a changin’ and new Intel machines are gearing up for Apple and its OS X operating system.”
“In June 2005, Apple announced a brilliant strategy. They decided to abandon the IBM PowerPC processors to move to the Intel engine. Can you imagine the possibilities? We could live in a world where you could now buy a brand-name computer or clone and load Apple OS X Tiger on it or dual-boot your computer with OS X and Windows. You may even be able to run Windows on an Apple computer. Seriously,” Warren writes. “With Apple’s move to the Intel platform, I see several things happening in the industries where Apple reigns supreme, which include publishing, recording, Hollywood, etc. Currently these industries use both Microsoft and Apple products. Imagine if these industries had the option to abandon Microsoft as the workstation and simply load OS X throughout their infrastructure; an infrastructure that already owns or leases Intel based PC’s.”
“If Apple can take the next step and move into a licensing model, we could really see some things heat up which is very encouraging,” Warren writes.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take by SteveJack: Everything out of Apple so far says Mac OS X will only run on Apple-branded Macs. Apple execs have also said that it would be possible for Windows to run on Intel-based Macs and that Apple would do nothing to prevent Macs from doing so. Until we hear otherwise, I’ll have rate the idea of being able to run Mac OS X on any x86 PC as “not likely.”
After Jobs’ [announcement that Apple would shift its Mac line to Intel-based chips], 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. – CNET, June 6, 2005
The possibility of being able to run Windows on any Intel-based Mac seems a much more reality-based idea and the possibilities are much more fun to imagine. Dual-booting Mac OS X and Windows on Intel-based Macs is one such idea, but hardly the most elegant. Another is having the ability to run VirtualPC (Windows within the secure Mac OS X environment) at native speeds. Probably the most intriguing concept can be seen in a project like Darwine which allows the user to run Windows applications via Mac OS X without needing Windows at all. Imagine if you could run Windows-only applications (think AutoCAD, for just one example) at native speeds without needing Windows on Intel-based Macs? How many industries that are tied to Windows-only apps (Architecture, Engineering, Real Estate, etc.) would be able to consider Macs again? Who wouldn’t want to be able to run the virus-free Mac OS X that can run Mac-only apps like iMovie HD, Keynote, GarageBand, iDVD, iPhoto, Aperture, Pages, Motion, DVD Studio, Final Cut Pro, Logic, etc. along Windows-only games and apps?
The Cupertino Project?
Was Schiller’s “no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac” comment just another Apple smokescreen along the lines of “no video iPod is planned?” Could Steve Jobs be preparing to drop just such a bomb on the Windows box assemblers at Macworld Expo or sometime in 2006? Would he first drop just a moderately destructive atomic bomb on the likes of Dell, HP, Lenovo, Gateway, etc., leaving out the “Windows apps on Mac without Windows” threat to Microsoft? Or could Jobs actually be boldly planning to drop the industry-devastating hydrogen bomb on both the Windows box assemblers and Microsoft all in one fell swoop? If a Mac could run Mac OS X and Windows, who would buy a Dell, HP, etc.? If a Mac could run Mac OS X and Windows applications without Windows, who would buy a Dell or a copy of Windows from Microsoft? And what would Microsoft be able to do about it? Drop Internet Explorer for Mac (LOL)? Drop Office for Mac? Big deal, we’ll run the Windows versions on our Macs then, if need be. Is this why Jobs has been building a world-class library of Mac-only software titles for years? Does Jobs still harbor the desire to take back the personal computer industry from Microsoft? Could that be the real reason why Jobs is undertaking the massive switch to Intel-based Macs? Or do you really think the switch to Intel-based Macs is just to get better performance per watt CPUs for Apple iBooks and PowerBooks?
Today Apple has mastered the art of moving from one computer user’s space to another with its graphic cube effect. This is commonly known as Fast User Switching and is a system preference in Mac OS X. But [can you] imagine a world wherein you can cube the cube? Imagine that each user account can have multiple instances of operating systems (perhaps OS X and Windows, or Linux and OS X) running simultaneously. From the Apple menu a user would select an OS environment and an Exposé cubic switch would literally swing around a different OS environment, just like today’s Fast User Switching… Apple already has the interface technique in place and the technology to make this happen in Exposé. What it lacks is the ability to run multiple operating systems side by side. That it can now get from Intel and its virtualization technologies inside of future Pentium and Xeon chips. [Intel-based Macs from Apple] may offer us not just smooth multiple user environments, but multiple OS worlds as well. – Architosh, November 16, 2005
For even more tantalization, Google “Yellow Box for Windows” and/or “Mac Dharma.” (Note: Mac OS X users can highlight the text I’ve placed within quotes, Control-Click (or Right-Click) on the highlighted text and choose “Search in Google.”)
SteveJack is a long-time Macintosh user, web designer, multimedia producer and a regular contributor to MacDailyNews.
Advertisements:
• The New iPod with Video. The ultimate music & video experience on the go. From $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.00.
• The New iMac G5. Built-in camera and remote control. From $1299. Free shipping.
• Apple USB Modem. Easily connect to the Internet using your dial-up service. $49.00.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Report: Apple contracts with Intel for design of next-gen Power Mac motherboard – December 27, 2005
Report: Quanta and Asustek to partner with Apple on new Intel-based iBooks and PowerBooks – December 27, 2005
Intel ‘Yonah’ specs, performance detailed; processor expected to power first Apple Intel-based Macs – December 22, 2005
Move to Intel-based Macs one of the most important switches Apple has ever made – December 22, 2005
It’s official: Apple CEO Steve Jobs to deliver Macworld San Francisco 2006 keynote address – December 01, 2005
Will future Intel-based Apple Macs offer multiple OS worlds via virtualization? – November 16, 2005
Apple patent application describes Intel-based Macs that run Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows – November 05, 2005
Is Apple morphing Mac into the ultimate PC capable of running Mac OS X, Windows, Linux? – June 20, 2005
Intel’s built-in virtualization tech could be one way to run Windows on Intel-based Apple Macs – June 16, 2005
Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ ultimate goal: ‘to take back the computer business from Microsoft’ – June 16, 2005
Why buy a Dell when Apple ‘Macintel’ computers will run both Mac OS X and Windows? – June 08, 2005
Freedom at Last, Thank you Apple, Thank you Intel.
Finally I’ll be able to Ditch Windows to the Trash Basket of Computer History.
Since Moving to OS X Five Years Ago I have Needed but been Unable
to Open my archived Outlook email .PST files — thanks to Monopolist MSFT.
Yeah, yeah, I know: You Can Do Anything on a Mac, sure, of course,
unless you work in an actual office that uses Microsoft Outlook to run email;
(like every business in the world that I know of)
because in that case you Need to Run Windows if you ever want to open
and read your archived local copies of your mailboxes
which MSFT stores in proprietary .PST files that Only Outlook can read.
(Entourage cannot open .PST files in a disk or your local drive: it can only
read mailboxes — .PST files — that reside in a MSFT Outlook email Server)
Not Anymore and Not a Year Too Soon
(for my business needs to access my old but still valuable .PST files)
Now with an Intel Macintosh we’ll be able to Run MSFT Outlook
and finally be able to open local archived .PST files on a Mac.
Freedom at Last, Thank you Apple, Thank you Intel.
Get a Life–Get a Mac
Apple snaps up software format translator
SchemaSoft comes under Jobs’ wing
By Ina Fried
Published: Wednesday 23 March 2005
Apple has confirmed that it has scooped up SchemaSoft, a small Canadian company that helps software makers translate rival file formats.
“Apple has acquired assets from SchemaSoft, a developer of software components for facilitating digital information workflow,” the Cupertino company said in a statement. The Mac maker added that it plans to use SchemaSoft’s technology in future products but did not offer specific details.
SchemaSoft’s tools are capable of extracting data found in a variety of formats including those used by Microsoft Office documents, Adobe Systems’ Portable Document Format as well as those used by Quark and others, the software maker states on its website. The tools can also output into those formats as well as into HTML and XML.
http://software.silicon.com/applications/0,39024653,39128936,00.htm
SchemaSoft’s patents and technologies figure highly in Apple’s efforts in this area. SchemaSoft used to have Microsoft, Corel, Adobe and others among it’s clients. They exited the business after selling out to Apple.
Stay Tuned
Odd, the reports I’ve read indicate Rosetta runs surprisingly fast.
Jake:
The available data is what is released by MS:
e.g:
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY05/earn_rel_q4_05.mspx
The problem is learning how to read the data. On the surface, it looks like Windows and Office generate similar revenue. Add the server/enterprise related products, and you’re up to 70-80% of the company’s revenue.
Deep looking: (I was told about this by a relative that used to work for MS) If you look at their expenses, the bulk of actual funds spent goes to Windows related issues: research, development, upcoming releases, support, litigation, marketing…etc. What these reports do not show is how much each “segment” cost the company to generate revenue. And my relative tells me (and it would make common sense) that these expenses are driven by the OS.
The bottom-line is that it is costs a lot to generate profit from the OS, when compared to Office/Server/Enterprise-support.
I’ll look for any available in-depth analysis that support this assumption.
I always like how CIOs think that Apple can just waltz in and challenge Microsoft and Microsoft will blink. They want this to happen, not because they like Apple but because they hope it will force Microsoft to innovate and/or drop prices. (At least the commentator was honest about that.)
But it’s not gonna happen, and they’re the reason it won’t.
You can count the number of Fortune 500 companies that have standardized on non-MS operating systems on one hand.
Dream what you may dream, but all companies are about revenue; those companies that are not cease to exist rather quickly. Apple is pretty much a home computer now, save for a few specialty industries. Microsoft may decry home piracy, but in the end consumer use accounts for at most half of their revenue.
So how do you keep that precious revenue stream alive?
You just can’t force revenue from the home user. Look at the bad press surrounding the RIAA and Sony. Suing 94-year-olds is political suicide. Microsoft relies on the sheer volume of their installed base; Apple’s solution is to sell the world’s most expensive hardware key.
Corporations are a different matter. A BSA raid on a corporate office may make a minor footnote in a Slashdot article, but the rest of the world shrugs it off. Juries are more likely to be sympathetic to a crying 7-year-old than a billion-dollar conglomerate.
Until Apple can secure a good portion of the Fortune 500 as a guaranteed revenue stream, the so-called “software Macintosh” will remain a pipe dream of both cheapskate hobbyists and browbeaten CIOs alike.
It’s just a change in chip; nothing more, nothing less.
Rosetta isn’t going to run faster than 80% of the speed of a PPC G5 system all translation programs in the past have not and neither will Rosetta, I’m talking about running the OS and a real full size applications doing actual work (not a benchmark), don’t look for the first systems to run as fast they won’t. Also Apple get ready to a endless battle to keep Asian companies and hackers with cheap PC’s from running your software the PPC was a perfect doggle over the years, the grass is’t always greener.
“Which operating system is better, Microsoft or Apple? The debate rages on”
There is no debate on which is OS is better, just wether or not it is better to choose quality or what most people are using.
“but what we do know is this: Currently, your organization does not have the ability to dual-boot a Windows and an Apple operating system,”
MY organization has a ton of both Mac and Windows computers. The windows computers that type text or worse, sit there, and the Mac’s that do most of the real work.
–On the Cupertino Project.
It is not in Apple’s interest to “sell” OS X for other computers, but if it could be hacked it would get the Mac foot in the door of many companies. When it comes time to buy legitimate computers, the Mac will be on the top of the list!
Most successful software programs, such as PhotoShop, were able to be copied without too much effort. Programs that had iron clad copy protections died before enough people knew about them.
–On my other post.
I was caught with my dictionary down and misspelled wether, er, I mean whether. Damn castrated ram!
Can someone explain to me how Microsoft has no recourse? I understand they can’t do what Apple is doing and make sure only ‘authorized hardware’ will run Windows, but why couldn’t they do the opposite and make it so Windows locks out any Apple harware from using it? If the Mac OS will presumably look for a chip or something presumably hardwired that will allow it to install, couldn’t Vista be written so that it looks for the same thing and instead of it being an authentication it’d be a deathentication?
Or is there a flaw in that thinking?
How much $$$ does Microsoft make from selling and supporting Windows (all flavors)? A whole heckuva lot!
I found this here:
http://www.computergripes.com/microsoft.old.html
<<FYI: How much money does Microsoft make on Windows? In a recent SEC filing, they reported that last quarter, the division of Microsoft that sells Windows had revenue of $2.89 billion and profits of $2.48 billion. That calculates out to a profit margin of 85 per cent. Assuming 91 days in the quarter, Microsoft made a profit of $27,252,747 every day on Windows. Twenty seven million dollars a day. The division that sells Microsoft Office reported profits in the same quarter of $1.8 billion, on revenues of $2.3 billion. In other words, a profit margin of 78% and a daily profit of $19,780,219. >>
Sorry about the mispelled words above.
I was thinking it COULD be a legal matter to do with the anti-trust issues that’d keep MS from blocking Apple hardware, though who would argue when even Apple admits that they won’t support Windows on Macs (they simply won’t keep anyone from doing that…. because that’ll now be Microsoft’s job should they decide to).
I sense, something big goin to happen.
When the intel mac reliase, tons of hackers going to hack it, so dat ; Windoze can run on apple, and mac can run on dale, and other peecee’s machine. And it would be out of control (like Berlin wall). When the day comes, steve has no choice but to license out its’ mac x (code name: Lion) to other pee cee’s brand.
—————————-
THE CLONE WAR, BEGUN HAS.
Be prepared to join the dark side.
I would be concerned if this happened. What motivation would a developer have to write Mac based programs? Especially the gaming indutry.
They could just say, use the Windows version. This would mean that less and less Mac programs would be made available and then what? All that is left is running native Windows programs without Windows? I would much prefer to use my applications with the Mac OS interface and security. Sometimes we don’t always get what we wished for.
I am frothing at the mouth with anticipation! I can’t wait for the Mac future!
One more note to add…
It amuses me to see people worried that developers will no longer write their applications for the Mac platform. If those applications work equally as well on either platform, and they work great or either platform, who cares? If you can use the program, and use it well, is what matters.
Apple will not suffer the fate of IBM’s OS2. Apple has a huge installed user base of highly devoted and loyal Mac fans! Apple and Steve Jobs are crazy enough, and eclectic enough to pull this off. If anyone can, they can!
1. The largest Mac developer is Apple. They’re not going anywhere.
2. If market share increases, the Mac platform can only get more attention, not less.
3. Again, even if developers should choose to support only one version of their apps, as long as those apps work well, who cares if it’s the same version that the Windows world gets to use? Eventually people will get fed up and switch if they are able to continue to use the same software that they have already invested in, and are already proficient with!
4. Worse case scenario–We are able to run Windows programs natively, and Apple’s market share stays the same–Who cares? Does anyone really care if anyone else uses a Mac? I’d like to see the whole world switch, but as long as the user base is strong enough to keep Apple going, I’m happy! (Although people would be bound to switch if this were the case.)
MW: Volume. As in the volume of the Macintosh voice is about to increase by several hundred decibels!
Or maybe he’ll announce Dharma. Could be a most interesting Christmas, Part II, er… MWSF.
2006 around the corner and journalists are about to start talking about a global shifting of the IT industry’s tectonic plates…
Apple will choose to license OSX for the boxmakers once its market cap exceeds the combined cap of MSFT, DELL and HP…!
Six years ago we were HOPING for great things from Apple
Five years ago we were THINKING we might get great things from Apple
Two years ago we were EXPECTING great things from Apple
One year ago we started GETTING great things from Apple
..and today we are starting to be AMAZED at what HUGE affects Apple will have on the world, starting in 2006…
Go Apple!
Comment posed as question, or visa-versa.
The operating system (MS-MAC) is simply the interface to access the software, right? Aside from “official” MS software, the plethora of independent software out there that written to be used with Windows is really written to operate on intel/x86 machines who (until 2006) were relegated to Windoze because that was the interface used to access them? Wouldn’t a MacIntel machine be able to simply open and operate the software, or would it be as simple as some code-line tweaking from the software developers to offer the software so it will be labeled “Windows, or Mac 10.4.4” Sorry if this question has been addressed or oversimplified, but if someone has the technical understanding to answer it, please do.
and MDN, how the f&$k did you get MS to advertise on this site!? 2-ché… simply brilliant!
That will be the end of both Macs and MacOS X.
Comments above seem to break down along the lines of ‘Will Apple decide to take the hardware side of the PC industry, or the OS side?’ In other words, trying to keep OSX on their own machines, and thus generating profit from increased machine sales, or taking an M$-like tac and reaping profits from selling more versions of OSX (and all Apple software) to people & companies who want to load their own machines.
Personally, I doubt an ‘executive decision’ has been made one way or another. It’s too tough to tell how that particular wave will break, and setting the company’s strategy in stone at this stage would risk missing it altogether. What if they try the M$/OS path to profit, and find it impossible to control the problems of hardware compatibility, hacking and/or piracy? What if they go the ‘lock OS down and sell whole box’ route, and find that taking on the many (Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc …) vs the One (M$) is in fact too big a job, or that too many people continue to suffer from the Helsinki Effect (and thus don’t switch), or that – again – they can’t actually lock OSX down and it gets out into the wild anyway, costing them lost sales?
Now, if a choice HAD to be made, I would expect OSX sold to whomever desires it. The costs in scaling hardware production to the levels necessary for best-estimate demand, and risks in that estimate being wrong, are big. Just selling the software makes more economic sense, especially since the hacking and piracy risks are the same no matter which way you go. However, I don’t believe a choice is being made yet, b/c I also don’t think Jobs has a real stake in this computer ‘OS War’ anymore.
First, Apple already makes big bucks with small computer OS marketshare, so there’s no compelling economic reason to go for broke there. Second, if Jobs was counting on getting share back from Gates in a straight up computer OS-to-OS competition, it could take a decade before he’d even get half of what M$ has now. And that’s assuming status quo; that Windows stays ‘sucky’ forever. Frankly, I don’t think Jobs is that patient, OR that the people who depend on Windows for their livelihood will stay that unmotivated forever. For those reasons, I think a computer OS market takeover is, for Jobs, a nice bonus if it happpens, but not the focus.
He’s looking at something that he assumes will have a bigger ‘Bow Wave Effect’ – pushing the industry along, and sucking behind it all other considerations in it’s wake. And that is multimedia. More specifically, since we all know he’s got the audio portion well in hand, it means video.
There’s nothing potentially bigger or more powerful on the landscape. If he can make an Apple-branded Multimedia OS/Machine combo that captures the hearts and minds of the buying public, ala iTunes/iPod in audio, then whatever computer OS is in predominant use is sort of academic. Halo effects being what we now know they are, more people will be willing to buy an Apple OS’d computer (regardless if Apple makes the whole thing) due to their exposure to the overarching A/V multimedia experience he wants to create. Yet if they come or not, for Jobs & Apple the money and market numbers will already be there, from a much higher growth area.
That’s why I keep saying the Macintel transistion is clearly NOT about performance. Intel doesn’t do well in performance comparisons – whether against IBM/PPC or AMD/x86 – so how can one seriously believe that was the priority for Apple? The thing Intel brings to the party is a huge presence in multimedia – both in hardware solutions (DRM) and in content supply (thanks – again – to their DRM). It’s obvious Apple shifted focus to consumer-type hardware; and it’s also logical to see that, since traditional computing hardware isn’t their main priority anymore, neither is the old OS War that goes along with it.
Again, Jobs will take more market where he can, including computer OS’s, but he’s not looking at dominating the PC box market in the next few years as ‘Job #1’, because that’s not likely possible. Yet he CAN dominate the multimedia/video box/content market, as it’s essentially just starting (like the computer ‘glory days’ of the early 80s). He can beat M$ to THAT mythical finish line in a straight up contest, and make a butt-load of money in the process. That’s what a multimedia centric strategy provides. If he wins big there, everything else will likely be pulled along in due time.
So, insofar as big decisions regarding how best to get computer OS marketshare have to be made, better to wait and see; how well OSX stays locked on Apple-only machines, how much pent-up demand for a (legal & paid for) Windows alternative their really is, and which industry is the more lucrative to fight (hardware or OS).
Until those things become more clear, he’ll keep his eye on the REAL prize – the one he’s clearly invested in AND has a better-than-even chance of winning – video.
I would hate to run Photoshop et al in their Windows dressing. Wouldn’t that include that horrid application window? Don’t all those Windows versions come with all of those convoluted dialog box sets? Tab stacks? Unintuitive dialog button labels? Properties\Advanced…\Tab\Select\Edit…\Options\Click.
Would these Windows apps still be AppleScript-able? That’d be a feat. If not, there goes all of my workflow scripting.
I think losing Mac versions of apps would be worse than just having to use the Windows GUI on a Mac.
Lets not forget where we are at in history folks. We are at a drastic point of change for Apple, very true. But you don’t build a bomb and let the entire world know you have it, advantage lost. Apple is simply doing this at the moment, switching to intel. We will still have our VirtualPC and I would not expect anything larger than thatat the moment. I personaly don’t think it’s Steve’ stratedgy to throw a neucular weapon into this game and try to wipe the other out. He WANTS people to switch, he wants people to switch on their own though. Think of how we all came to the mac, and what loyalty we all now have to it. The passion that burns inside of us when we hear even the mac name. No, this is not the final battle, the battle is long yet, but Steve’ plans are elegant, just like his computers. Ad he wil come through with style and grace, while MS is going to get tied up in the duct tape they been using to repair they’re crapy OS for years now.
Licensing would not happen until Apple would reach a critical mass stage in marketshare.
Apple would have to get around 20% of the computer market share before it would consider licensing it´s OS. And then why? If so many are buying Apple why does Apple need to license it or run windows?
And look, Apple has 70+% of the portable music biz and does not license the iPod sytem to others.
Guys, I’d read up on Intel’s Proc Virtualization, code named “Vanderpool,” and how that technology will greatly benefit Apple. Just imagine switching between operating systems without having to reboot your system, simply by using Apple’s user switching technology. Imagine hitting a key, i.e. control-esc or something, and the system switching seamlessly and gracefully between OS X and Windows (or any other flavored OS).
Imagine seeing this technology as early as next year. From what I’ve gathered and read thus far, all Intel “Yonah” procs will be shipping with this technology. Think of the possibilities. Endless… I’d start writing eulogies for every single PC manufacture because this will be the death knell of the likes of Gateway, Dell, etc.
Yes, indeed, this is just the beginning of greater things to come! Or is it?!?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />