“Apple has formally introduced a utility called Boot Camp that lets owners of Intel-based Macs run Windows XP,” Ed Bott blogs for ZDNet. “I’m not a big fan of dual-booting, which represents a crude solution to compatibility problems. If you own a Mac, you bought it because you want to use your Mac applications. It’s an enormous hassle to shut everything down and boot into an alien operating system to perform a task that can’t be accomplished in the native environment. And while you’re running Windows on your Mac, you’ve lost all access to your familiar Mac desktop and programs. I’m also skeptical that drivers written for Windows XP will work seamlessly on this unfamiliar hardware platform. When you add it all up, this is a feature that diehard enthusiasts might experiment with, but it won’t be particularly useful in the real world.”
“Now, what would really be interesting is if Apple or a third-party software maker could create a virtualization layer that allowed Windows and native Windows programs to run in an alternate process under the Mac OS. If I knew I could install a software layer like VMWare or Virtual PC and toggle instantly between the Windows environment and the Mac OS, with the ability to share data files and a Clipboard, I’d be sorely tempted to buy an Intel-based Mac,” Bott writes. “Want to take bets on how soon it will happen?”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Note: As Bott notes in an update below his blog entry, “a Virginia-based company called Parallels, Inc. will release a beta version of its Windows VM package for Macs later this week. Mossberg says the program will be called Parallels Workstation for OS X and will cost $49, plus the cost of Windows itself.” See related article about Parallels below.
Advertisements:
• Apple’s brand new iPod Hi-Fi speaker system. Home stereo. Reinvented. Available now for $349 with free shipping.
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• MacBook Pro. The first Mac notebook built upon Intel Core Duo with iLife ’06, Front Row and built-in iSight. Starting at $1999. Free shipping.
• iMac. Twice as amazing — Intel Core Duo, iLife ’06, Front Row media experience, Apple Remote, built-in iSight. Starting at $1299. Free shipping.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
Related articles:
Parallels releases first virtualization solution for Intel-powered Apple Intel-based Macs – April 05, 2006
Apple introduces Boot Camp: public beta software enables Intel-based Macs to run Windows XP – April 05, 2006
It seems that Apple didn’t have a choice except to somehow support booting Windows.
What effect would the virtualized Windows have on the OS X performance once it is inundated with spyware and adware?
The ultimate solution would as states so many times before, to be able to run windowsapps in mac os x.
Correct me if i’m wrong but wouldn’t it be easier to emulate the windows32 api than to emulate a whole computer..that way it would leave a smaller memoryfootprint and you would be able to run your windows programs just like you run ppc code under rosetta?
(and if you do correct me, don’t just state that it wouldn’t
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” /> provide some info pretty please)
http://openosx.com/wintel/ – wasnt this 1st though?
This is a better idea then boot, re-boot, boot, re-boot of the Apple solution; which as the auther says is just not practical.
“I’m also skeptical that drivers written for Windows XP will work seamlessly on this unfamiliar hardware platform.”
I thought Apple solved this problem by buringing you a disk of XP drivers during the Boot Camp installation process. Am I confused? Also, what’s unfamiliar about the hardware platform? Aren’t all the internals the same as every beige box? Does XP somehow know there’s an Apple logo on the outside?
Now I can run Windows but have the the great hardware and design of Apple. I so wish the Cube had been an Intel, it would have looked great on the credenza.
This is just the first step. I have no doubt “switching” between the two OS’s will come later. But Apple need’s to take the time to do it right so virus attacks on one OS does not effect the other.
Security first!
Hey, all you tech heads out there, I pose a question?
Is it possible for Apple to eventaully have windoze available on the MAc like user switching and also have the UNIX bottom line protect it from Viruse’s.
If apple can do that and offer all the protection we have as OS X users and give the Windoze world the same experience would they then not control the computing world???????
Food for thought, is it possible?
Leo
littleman – macs use efi instead of bios to run os on computer and as far as i know they still make there own motherboards not the standard intel ones that beige boxes use.
Emil, I agree implementing Windows 32 API would be the best solution for the users. However, it probably is not right solution for Apple in long term. Win32 API on OSX may give some dual platforms application developers, like Adobe, an execuse to stop developing for OSX. Better solution for Apple may be license Cocoa for Windows to the application developer, so they stop developing application using Win32 API (I’m not sure if Apple has kept a copy of Cocoa for Windows up to date or not).
VM solution should run almost as fast as native Windows on Intel Mac. It just require more memory (hard disk and RAM).
I actually think the drivers will work better with the Mac since most things do. Hence why the initial tests show Windows is “blazing” on the Mac….
I think the point being missed here, is that this is not a finished product. Maybe the first step is a dual boot, and the next step is a windows environment a la classic? Everyone seems to be going off on how bad a dual boot is, but let’s just calm down and see what Apple has in store. Come on folks, relax.
Both environments are important.
Making computer dual boot, turns Apple into a high end hardware vendor to all companies that use wintel. Also provides an entrypoint into the OS X environment for potential “switchers” including both companies and individuals
Virtual environment is good for Mac users that need to run an occasional windows application without having to shutdown their primary operating system.
Great news for computer users. Not sure how it will play out for Apple. It will be interesting to see. Apparently many analysts think its a good thing.
-jl
I smell a rat!
Is it possible that Apple has done a deal with M$ and this is why they are recompiling VISTA to make it fully compatible with Apple hardware and the new Intel technology. M$ don’t care where they sell Windoze as long as they sell, sell, sell. Remember they are strictly a software company.
Apple might just be the vehicle for them to make the break from the backward compatabilty bullshit they have been stuck with. They already have a plethora of systems for every dog, why not make their corporate special available for the Mac only and nothing to do with BIOS.
Stranger things have happened.
If gamers are the first audience for windows apps on a mac, regardless of whether the technology employed is Virtualization, Emulation or Dual Booting… none of it will be worthwhile unless and until the performance is within 5% of native OS X.
If the target audience is business users… Dual Booting will not do the trick regardless of performance. Virtualization or Emulation will be the name of the game for them as long as performance is within 10% of what they are used to from their Dell.
I have no need to run windows games on a mac, WoW is already universal binary and runs fantastically well on the MacBook Pro. But there is ONE single bussiness app that I have a Dell laptop for. If I could run that seamlessly, at least as fast as the Dell laptop does, I would not care whether it were Virtualization or Emulation. I’d pay for that to get rid of the Dell.
MW=”nation”… Windows machiNations are no match for the Mac Nation.
andy,
As far as I know, some PCs do come with EFI capabilities, even though XP (and someday Vista) don’t use them. Also, don’t at least some PC manufacturers design their own boards, at least on some of their systems?
I guess my main point is that the sentence I quoted sounds a lot like FUD to me.
I think Apple’s ultimate end game is to make the Mac the platform for developers. Rather than make a direct frontal assault on Fortress Microsoft, Apple is taking a more crafty approach to undermine the enemy from the inside out.
That is, I actually give credence to the MacOSRumors rumor about the revival of Yellow Box. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that Apple decided to coin the term “Universal Binary” because I think they truly mean “universal.”
That is, if a developer switches to Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard and Xcode, they will be able to create, in one stroke, an application that runs on PPC Macs, Intel Macs, and Windows. No more of this archaic mess of maintaining dual code base. In the future, Apple intends nothing less than this: all software development will be based on the Mac.
The obvious benefit is that there will always (more or less) be a native Mac version of all software. Furthermore, developers would be using Apple’s set of APIs (and thus bypassing Win32 APIs) that would install separately on a Windows machine, just like the whole QuickTime package is installed when people install iTunes. The only exception to this would be games, which rely on DirectX APIs.
I mean, think about it. Adobe is already working on migrating all their Mac software to Xcode. What if in August, Apple announces that “Hey, with another click of this new button here, that Mac Photoshop you have on Xcode there can produce a highly optimized Windows Photoshop.”
Adobe will look at the tens of millions of dollars they spend doing Windows programming, look at Xcode which can produce both Mac and Windows versions easily and simultaneously, and guess what do you think will happen?
Revolution in the Valley, indeed.
On the other hand, the approach used by Apple is the same used by just about every Linux distribution, and is only a first stab.
Also, I can’t imagine it will be long before you will have the option to boot into OS X, Windows XP, or Ubuntu/Red Hat/Debian, etc. Maybe a fourth option for people that want straight BSD, etc.
OpJ,
Exactly – the Mac is gaining the reputation of being the ULTIMATE tool for power users and alpha geeks. That’s the main point of Boot Camp.
And all this whining about “Meh – virtualization is better.” It sounds like the typical elitist Slashdot reaction to the iPod introduction, i.e. “Meh. $399. No wireless. Lame.” Can you say, “missing the point?”
Truly, people seem to want everything, all at once, for free. Umm, how about noting the fact that Boot Camp was released at all (in beta form) and that it remains to be seen how exactly Boot Camp will be integrated into Leopard in August?
It sounds like this guy will be getting a intel mac soon if this VMware does everything he would like. And the cost of $49.00 is very good.
NewType:
This particular Yellow Box scenario has been repeated by a few people, but I think it’s flawed.
Where’s the money? To sell a few more units to developers (major minority there)? Considering how many designers and hackers are already on board with OS X, there’s not much room for growth.
And real windows shops will *never* switch over to Xcode. If you’re on board with Visual Studio, .Net, SQLServer and all that rot, Xcode will never cut it, nor provide properly integrated windows code.
And I think we can count MS out for switching.
Which leaves Adobe. So in your plan Apple is going to do all of this to save Adobe some pain? Nah. Adobe will get their ports done, lagging a bit as usual.
Same for all the zillions of little crap VB monkeys who’ve churned out the little specialized apps over the years that a few people rely on.
I’m just not seeing any monetary or strategic advantage in what you’re proposing.
*If* Apple is working on Cocoa/Carbon/YellowBox for windows, I would have to presume it’s mostly for their own internal purposes, to make iTunes easier to maintain, or to release new apps for Windows. Which could be a distinct possibility.
And if that happens, my guess it would be something analogous to iTunes/iPod. A gadget to sell to the masses, with some accompanying software that must be able to run on Windows.
Actually the REBOOT problem will be taken care of when you use the Windows session. I mean come on, how long can you actually run Windows WITHOUT having to REBOOT for one reason or another!
For my use the virtualization is much better, I need to run the Windows version of Quicken and maybe a couple of other Windows only apps, just like VPC would allow.
Randolph,
As a software developer, I would LOVE to see YellowBox come back. If I could take my Cocoa app and focus on Mac development plus get the bonus of Windows users as well: Perfect!
Apple would do this not just for Adobe, but for the promotion of XCode and “Mac First” development. Build it on a Mac using our Foundation Classes (the best libraries on any platform–thank you NeXT!) and create the best Macintosh AND Windows applications with one click.
This means that all the coolest new applications come out on the Mac no later than Windows. It’s a win-win for developers and users.
>If I knew I could install a software layer like VMWare or Virtual PC and toggle instantly between the Windows environment and the Mac OS, with the ability to share data files and a Clipboard, I’d be sorely tempted to buy an Intel-based Mac,” Bott writes. “Want to take bets on how soon it will happen?”<
Want to take bets on how soon Apple buys Parallels, Inc. and integrates that solution into OSX? That’s why Steve Jobs keeps $9 billion in his sock drawer. If I’m the guys at Parallels, I’m picking out my new Jag right now.