“Apple’s switch to Intel processors and the Macs newfound ability to run Windows natively may lead to increased adoption in the home and small business marketplace, but will probably not translate to an increased presence in large-scale corporate environments, say industry analysts. Needham and Company analyst Charles Wolf recently predicted that Apple’s market share could triple in the home,” Mathew Honan reports for Macworld.
“Although Boot Camp will allow Mac users to boot up into either the Windows or the Macintosh OS and run Windows applications natively, in order to switch, they must shut down and restart their machines. This reduces productivity since a user must quit working in all open applications and wait while the machine shuts down and restarts,” Honan reports.
“The productivity issue might help explain some aspects of Apple’s new ads. In its new ‘Get a Mac’ campaign, the ‘Touche’ ad promotes Parallels, rather than Boot Camp, as an option for people who want to run Windows on their Macs. It further promotes Parallels on its ‘Get a Mac – Run Windows’ promotional page. Wolf, who had not seen the page prior to speaking with Macworld, says that while he thinks there is much to be said for dual booting, he was glad to see the company pushing Parallels,” Honan reports.
“‘I am so pleased to see [Apple promoting Parallels],’ said Wolf. ‘I had a talk with Phil Schiller at the opening of the 5th Avenue Apple Store, and I asked him the question, ‘will Apple include a virtualization solution in [the next version of Mac OS X] Leopard.’ He said ‘absolutely not, the R&D would be prohibitive and we’re not going to do it. Our solution is dual boot.’ When I saw Parallels come out, I thought Apple would dis it, but this page suggests that Apple will actively support it.’ Wolf noted that other virtualization solutions are on the way, as well, from companies such as CodeWeaver, and that Apple should embrace them,” Honan reports.
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “LinuxGuy” for the heads up.]
Advertisements:
• Introducing the super-fast, blogging, podcasting, do-everything-out-of-the-box MacBook. Starting at just $1099.
• Get the new iMac with Intel Core Duo for as low as $31 A MONTH with Free shipping!
• Get the MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo for as low as $47 A MONTH with Free Shipping!
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• 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.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
Related articles:
Ars Technica review: Parallels Desktop 1.0 for Mac OS X – July 10, 2006
O’Reilly MacDevCenter Review: Parallels Desktop for the Mac is ‘amazing’ – June 28, 2006
ComputerRentals.com announces record Q2 sales based on high demand for Apple Macs – June 28, 2006
O’Reilly MacDevCenter Review: Parallels Desktop for the Mac is ‘amazing’ – June 28, 2006
Forced to run Windows? Make Parallels Desktop run faster – June 27, 2006
ComputerRentals.com announces record Q2 sales based on high demand for Apple Macs – June 28, 2006
Apple could buy Parallels with petty cash and say ‘buy a Mac, get two computers for price of one’ – June 22, 2006
Apple ‘Get a Mac’ web page pushes Parallels Desktop instead of Apple’s own Boot Camp – June 18, 2006
Parallels Desktop for Mac goes final; simultaneously run Mac OS, Windows, Linux on Intel-powered Mac – June 15, 2006
Which is better for running Windows programs on Macs, Boot Camp or Parallels Desktop? – May 25, 2006
Washington Times: Parallels Workstation 2.1 ran Windows XP ‘quite nicely’ on an Apple Macintosh – April 18, 2006
Dude, you got a Dell? What are you, stupid? Only Apple Macs run both Mac OS X and Windows! – April 05, 2006
Why buy a Dell when Apple’s Intel-based computers will run both Mac OS X and Windows? – June 08, 2005
I really don’t understand all the sudo-grumbling about Apple not taking care of virtualization in its OS environment… give me a big break.
Apple is not going to do it, and more importantly, they should never do it. If computer users, private or corporate want the Macintosh experience then let them take the plunge, period. I don’t believe that Apple went with Intel in order to run Windows or to take care of vitualization needs. The only thing that’s obvious to me is that, in the process of moving to another CPU, (so that they could move on with cutting edge development of their product), they have indeed made the world’s first single-point virtual OS hardware that can really be all things to all people – hoooray. But Apple shouldn’t be expected to shoulder the responsibility of making their hardware run everything except their OS, which I believe is what could very well happen if Apple is not careful. No, let real need drive third party mfg. to come up with the solutions that are actually needed by the relatively few that really need to run OS X and others.
Since the introductin of “MacIntel” its like we’ve all been brainwashed into thinking that Macs are supposed to run Windows… Sheeesh.
Said another way, how long until this forum becomes just another Windows user’s gripe-fest? Or are we there?
sn
I like your post however the IT market chose MS long time ago and that market is forever gone. Apple’s best chances are home and small biz. Governments are probably not the best market for Apple (other than education). As a former IT vendor I can tell you that government budgets are smaller and the sales cycles are veeeery long. Before Apple can go into a market it has to persuade IT software vendors to make their products comatible with Safari and OSX. That is Apple’s biggest weakness.
I have used computers with dual operating systems and it really is a pain to dual boot. Not a good solution for everyday work. For playing games every once in a while it may be ok.
Ashami,
The reason Steve said “Absoutely Not!” to running OS X on Intel was the ancient BIOS that Intel was still using (thanks to Windows) making it difficult to lock the OS down to the hardware. Once Intel released EFI, which enables locking software down to the hardware, Apple was more than happy to switch.
MW: Party. Apple was happy to join the x86 party once Intel got their act together after realizing that Windows was holding them back.
What the heck is the difference between:
1. emulation
2. virtualization
3. (enter term here)…whatever WINE does
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualization
http://darwine.opendarwin.org/
Sad that it takes Windows to boost Mac sales to the home. Oh well, whatever it takes to show the ignorant masses what they’ve been missing …
I’ll be installing Windows on my Macintel just because I can. I only expect to use it once or twice a year, however.
I wish this would finally put an end to the talk of virtualization in Leopard as if it is a sure thing. This is another one of those rumors (actually just a rampant presumption) that is repeated so much that, when it doesn’t actually happen, everyone will bitch and moan about how Apple “pulled” it at the last minute. (Insert MS conspiracy theory here.)
If you want to run Windows on your Mac (heaven forbid), you can either do it cheaply with Boot Camp, or more conveniently with Parallels. Let Apple concentrate on Mac OS.
And to the person who said: “Sorry, but unless they come up with some melt my socks options at the WWDC, I’ll probably stick with 10.4 as ‘good enough’, and I suspect that other people will be the same…”
We never know much about the next OS X version until Apple presents it. Did you really think Leopard was going to be 10.4 + Windows? That would be the worst release ever. I’m sure there’s plenty of stuff going on at Apple; it’s silly to pass judgment before WWDC.
Mr. Peabody – I agree 100%
Dennis – same
—> Apple having to be responsible for SUPPORTING this feature in OS X would just be ridiculous. As Mr. Peabody stated above “Apple is not going to do it, and more importantly, they should never do it. I totally concur with that statement.
What annoys me is that Apple’s stock and rep will plummet if they don;t include it- like they’re friggin’ expected to do this even though they didn’t actually say they were gonna. Stupid media hype and anal-ysts.
Ozzy – It’s all Shaw Wu’s fault. He always announces delays or cancelled features of unannounced products. You know, he’s got to have one of the most fun jobs on the planet. I can just seem him writing articles all day and just laughing his ass off. They had to give him a sound proof room because he laughs so hard! Just think about being able to announce delays on products that you don’t even know exist yet. He gets vujà dé as opposed to déjà vu.
Wu believes he has been transported back in time and needs to impregnate Linda Hamilton (aka Sarah Connor) so that the baby can predict delays on products Apple has already sold in the past.
Apple sells Macs to people who want to run both Windows and Mac apps.
Apple sells Macs to people who only want to run Windows apps.
Apple sells Macs to people who only want to run Mac apps.
In the immortal words of the nation’s preeminent scholar of racial harmony, Rodney King, “People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?”
Hey, Internet Explorer 5.x was Apple’s official browser solution until a few short years ago. Then Apple took existing code base as a starting point to create its own browser called Safari. However, it makes sense that Apple would make Boot Camp its “official” way to run Windows, at least initially. Apple wants to give its “switch” users the so-called Windows insecurity blanket so that they will consider a Mac as their next PC, but Apple really wants them to migrate to 100% Mac OS X over time. If some users want to or need to run a few Windows program under Mac OS X, let them pay for and use a third-party solution.
Previously, Apple worked closely with Connectix to help optimize Virtual PC on PPC Macs. But it wasn’t Apple that bought out Connectix to aquire VPC, it was Microsoft… maybe MS will do it again and bundle Parallels with a “Windows for Mac” package so that the user can choose between booting into Windows or running a virtual Windows machine under Mac OS X. Either way, MS gets to sell a copy of Windows to a Mac user.
Does any body know what happened to Virtual PC?
They bought over and stop producing it. Genius marketing huh?
Looong wait
MS is currently talking to Apple about the feasibility of a new release of VPC. My guess is that it is going to be discontinued. With Boot Camp and Parallels there is really no incentive for MS to continue to develop VPC
The real risk is Microsloth could buy Parellels and kill that too. Or worse, (gulp) “improve it”.
Virtual PC is a great product. It works quite well with a dual core G5 Power Mac (good for testing how web sites look and behave with Windows IE6). The “virtual machine” is a very compatible, so I’ll bet it will run Vista (if it’s ever released) without any modifications. Ironically, it is changes to Mac OS X that often “breaks” VPC.
parrallels works good on a mac for windows or linux
Did someone at MacDailyNews press a wrong button this morning? 🙂