“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
These discussions always remind me of Mark Twain’s quip about science:
“There’s something fascinating about science: one gets such wholesome returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”
Microsoft stole the look and feel of the Mac. It seems quite appropriate for Apple to steal the apps? Of course I’m speaking of running apps coded for Windoze on Mac OS. YES it will definitely happen but that is not the big deal.
Mac OS is not a thing, it’s a brand. The majority of Mac users don’t really know what the OS is or even where it is, they’re content dwelling in the User Interface. That’s perfectly ok because we can’t all be computer geeks.
The Mac OS with its Unix underpinnings is morphing into a universal host for code. The Apple hardware business provides a reliable place for Mac OS to live and work “reliably”. So what’s the big deal?
It’s the software business! In the beginning Apple created the original Mac and while it was a stunning little computer with a great interface the real magic that ignited the box was not the System or Finder. It wasn’t the mouse or the GUI. It was the combination of these things with two applications that came bundled with the machine, Mac Paint and Mac Write.
Prior to the original Mac a word processor system cost $15,000. A CAD system was very expensive and only affordable to large companys. The Mac and its two little “free” apps gave small one-man shops the ability to create good looking documents.
When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in the 90’s he reignited the company with the iMac design. The candy colors caught the lion share of attention but it was the inclusion of bundled “quality” software that helped the machine have a purpose. Today the bundle of software has grown to take on its own “iLife”.
I look for Apple to become a huge software company but it won’t come from licensing Mac OS to run on generic hardware. In the not too distant future you’ll be able to buy Apple hardware that can run almost any application regardless of the hardware it was intended for. At that point Apple will finally be free from depending on second or third party developers for anything. Without fear Apple will be able to focus on developing the best damn applications in the world, and know they’ve got good reliable hardware to run them on.
Steve Jobs might be an ass hole to work for but he is very smart and creative.
There are two types of individuals. Those who create and those who consume. Apple is becoming the one company that can serve both types.
In the beginning Apple provided unique products that enabled and empowered the smaller of the two types, the creative ones.
Now the company has grown enough to be able to take on the larger of the two types of individuals, consumers!
“But you don’t build a bomb and let the entire world know you have it,”
I think you mean, “You don’t work on developing a bomb and let the blah blah blah.” If you already have the bomb, the whole point of it would be to let someone know you have it, by way of threat or delivery.
“The passion that burns inside of us when we hear even the mac name.”
Er, maybe you should step away from the computer. Just for a bit.
Apple throws out everything and says nothing all the time. But to address the “hydrogen bomb” mentioned above, Apple needs to have the mostly compelling hardware in every category. And not just the most elegant.
For example, any Intel-powered PowerMac has to do more than what Quad does to a single dual-core Opteron – barely best it. This box would have to crush a dual Opteron box.
New laptops would have to offer processing power, battery life and form-factor not found in Windows boxes at prices that compete and be obviously compelling to any computer user and break the stigma – yes, stigma – of owning an Apple computer.
I hope Apple can do it.
I think that after this is over we’ll be saying, “Steve strikes again!”
I hope MDN puts a real name next to all of its commentary in the future (and that it isn’t one person using different personalities to escape the stigma of the “naughty boy” postings).
Happy 2006 everyone.
Only Pre-Vista Windows programs will run on a Mactel under Mac OS X
Zup – I don’t see owning a Mac as a “stigma” at all – it’s not a point of disgrace from any angle that I’ve experienced thus far – if anything, when people learn that I prefer Macs over PCs and can do my work just as effectively, if not moreso, I tend to see initial snorts of derision, followed by a distinct twinge of envy, colored by jealousy at the ease of use and lack of problems that I enjoy.
BuriedCaesar,
I don’t find it to be a stigma, either. I don’t think the vast majority of people here do.
However, there are about 90% of computer users who don’t own or use a Mac. It is to a large subset of that crowd to which I refer.
I have several Windows-only buddies who felt almost embarassed to go into an Apple store and buy an iPod and were quick to tell me they never would buy a computer from Apple (as if it gave them cooties or something).
Of course as much as I find their single-mindedness in nothing-but-Windows (without having even tried using OS X) to be plain pig-headedness, they find my Apple-only stance to be blind faith. And that’s with using Windows on a professional basis for over a decade.
Go figure.
I just don’t see it as the be all end all. People buy from Dell and HP and others because they are cheap. CHEAP. Cheap like no Mac will most likely ever be priced that low.
I think it’s great that some foliks who buy new Mactels will be able to run Windows or at least Windows programs… but I just don’t see a huge shift from people who buy CHEAP computers to people buying more expensive computers, just so they can run OSX as well.
Don’t forget, there are so many folks who just don’t even know there is something other than Windows, and even for those who do, they are not going to pay twice as much for a Macintel just to “try” a new OS.
It’s not that it isn’t going to make a difference, but for those who think that one day after the new Macintels go on sale that the world will shift to OSX.. well that’s just wrong.
Its really the end of Mac hardware. I a few weeks Mac will be nothing but a niche. Oh and by the way when was a the last time an operating system held its own against Microsoft? This Apple move to Intel is the break that both Microsoft and Intel have been waiting for since neither have done anything original on their own in such a long time. Im encouraged by the fact that the Intel “roadmap” will put Intel on a par with the PowerPC chips
that are already available today in 2 years.
VirtualPC Reality Check:
For anyone who thinks running VPC on Intel will offer ‘native application performance’ just b/c it’s running on it’s native x86 hardware, instead of PPC emulating x86 – I have some bad news for you, it won’t.
I run VPC for Windows at work on a P4, and it’s still slow. Is it as slow as running it on a PPC Mac? I can’t honsetly say, as I haven’t run a recent version on a modern Mac, but it’s safe to say that it’s performance on x86 under WinXP is nowhere near native application speed.
I think the cheap pc people were reading this article again… I think it would be stupid just to sell an operating system only and not hardware. Unless these people want to spend a pretty penny on this OS to run on any computer.. Not 125.00 but maybe 600.00 per computer. Why would any company do this for less ???? I hope they finally strip away the garbage necessary to run windows software and bring it back to risc processor…That would be the best for both worlds and finally smack the lack of development from pc developers and open there eyes to a new revolutionary product like OS X and kick it on. good luck the world is changing…
DanoX: Rosetta is different from things like VirtualPC and PearPC.
Unlike those emulators, Rosetta doesn’t have to emulate the OS and hardware.
For example, if a PPC program running on x86 via Rosetta ask OS X to draw a window, it will do so at native speed. All API calls made by the PPC applications will run natively at full speed.
The file system, Quartz, Quicktime and other Core APIs will run at full speed, even for a PPC app. There is no magic involved, just a different context.
As for asian cloners cracking OS X, I don’t think Apple cares that much since many asian countries don’t buy Macs anyway. If anything, it will bootstart Mac use in those areas.
Apple wants to discourage casual users from installing OS X on a non-Apple machines, they want to make it clear that they wont support those installations.
“MS makes little or no revenue directly from the Windows OS. Most of their revenue comes from apps than run on Windows, and support contracts. So their cash cows are actually Office and Exchange and all the corporate contracts they have […]”
I’d want to see some numbers on this. Microsoft makes money off of every PC sold with Windows. I agree that Microsoft makes very little money actually selling Windows as a stand-alone box.
(As an aside, this is one of the arguments I bring up whenever anybody brings up the “Oh, Apple could could sell Mac OS X/86 and make a ton of money.” Microsoft brings in vast dollars through OEM sales via Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. The revenue from direct Windows sales are puny by comparison.)
The Office products are definitely not money losers, the but revenue from Windows sales are what keeps Microsoft going.
We already saw the only kind of licensing model Steve Jobs is willing to accept with H-P and the iPod. That’s the most that anyone should expect. Mac OS X will only run (supported) on Apple hardware.
If Apple plans such functionality (running Windows apps w/o Windows), it won’t appear on the first Intel Macs. Apple will wait until at least Leopard, or may just wait until a third party vendor develops the capabilty (Gee, Bill, WE didn’t do it!).
Apple wants developers to create Mac OS X versions of their apps, not just allow their apps to be run under Mac OS X. What’s the point of that? Maybe it’s just eye candy, but it’s sure nicer to work on a computer that you enjoy looking at rather rather than a decade-old design and layers upon layers of junk to sort through.
Once most developers, at least the important ones, have created Mac OS X versions of their software, Apple may consider such a move. But not until then, and certainly not with the first Intel Mac products.
Last I heard, the revenue Microsoft makes off of Windows is over a billion dollars more than Apple’s entire revenue. I don’t think it’s insignificant.
And there’s no motivation whatsoever for Microsoft to not want Windows to run on Macintel hardware.
As for MacOS X running Windows apps out of the box, it doesn’t make any sense for Apple to provide that functionality. However, booting Windows (once you’ve purchased Windows and/or a SoftWindows environment) is practical. WINE is also practical, although that’s hardly a commercial-grade solution. (What company is going to gamble their support costs on trying to support a WINE-deployed solution?)
As for running Cocoa and Carbon apps on Windows, there’s no reason Apple couldn’t provide the APIs for both. Carbon is probably mostly done because of Quicktime, and Cocoa could be born from Yellow Box for Windows’ ashes.
OMG MACS SUCK!
just kidding, i really don’t believe that. I’m only saying it because a friend of mine didnt believe anyone would bash mac in this article, so i had to do it. 😀
“For my job, I will be happy to run Windows or Windows apps at native speeds on my Mac. However, the one thing I don’t want to see is software vendors dropping the Mac versions of their apps (or never considering them) and instead saying, “you can run the windows version on your Mac, so why should we develop two versions for two different platforms?”
Won’t happen. Why? Because the Cocoa/OPENSTEP development tools are 10 plus years betond anything Microsoft has planned. Once people fully comprehend they don’t need to mess with WINDOWS development tools any more, they won’t.
Switch is not about performance. heat or watts. PowerPC smokes Intel hands down!
That would be a good way for them to introduce the macs to people that need windows. I am a developer and mainly use MS’s technology but i would be happy if i could use a mac to do the work.
“Won’t happen. Why? Because the Cocoa/OPENSTEP development tools are 10 plus years betond anything Microsoft has planned. Once people fully comprehend they don’t need to mess with WINDOWS development tools any more, they won’t.”
This is simply not true. I wish it was. Cocoa/OpenStep is what people in the 1980’s thought would be a good idea regarding object orientation. The rest of the industry has come a long way since then. If you program in Java or C# you will have an order of magnitude more tools for designing, analyzing, refactoring, developing, and generally maintaining your code than with Objective C. In the last few years Java and C# have passed Cocoa by and haven’t looked back yet.
In general, Windows development tools and APIs are more mature, easier to use, and better supported by the company than Apple’s. Pretty much the only reason you still get Mac software is the die-hard Mac fans, the installed user base in some markets, and the fact that it’s no longer different enough from anything else so it’s not that hard to port to. Very little software is Mac or Cocoa-first outside some die-hard former NeXT developers.
Is this what the pain is all for?
So as Mac users we get access to a whole lot of poorly-coded, crud applications that lack user-interface consistency and feel?! – excellent … then developers, tired of developing for two platforms say to themselves, “You know, if Macs run Windows apps. natively, then what’s the point of writing anything for the Mac? I’ll just release the Windows POS …” – even better.
I really hope Steve knows what he’s doing.