posted
"More and more people are buying and loving Macs. To make this choice simply irresistible, Apple will include technology in the next major release of Mac OS X, Leopard, that lets you install and run the Windows XP operating system on your Mac. Called Boot Camp (for now), you can download a public beta today."
Wow, that was quick! I didn't expect Apple to release an easy way to install XP on a Mac so quickly.
Now I'm seriously going to have to think about buying a new Intel Mac.
posted
I think they meant installing it on the hardware. This is virtualization.
edit: actually, I'm just not sure. It seems to be a real install! (all the rumors were about virtualization, though, and it seems a little closemouthed about what its actually doing, so it may be some sort of low level virtualization).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would have to be, cause macs hardware doesn't run BIOS (they use something weird, I forget exactly what it's called). It CAN'T run BIOS. So its probably a virtualization of BIOS.
posted
I think you mean "BIOS." And the Intel Macs use EFI, which will be supported by Windows Vista. I think the chances for true virtualization support may have just increased -- if they're willing to go this far, they might be willing to go further.
I'm surprised. I didn't think they'd openly bless this practice.
Added: That said, my interest in owning a hypothetical future Intel "Power Mac" just increased significantly. I'd love to play the Half-Life games.
posted
Alcon: that just means they have a separate boot loader, mostly. Separate boot loader != virtualization.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Windows XP requires BIOS as a boot loader to run. It can't run on the EFI that Apples use. There for you'd have to have some program running between EFI and Windows Xp to simulate BIOS and translate to EFI. I'd call that a low level virtualization.
Editted to clarify.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Experience making BIOS-reliant software run on EFI machines just might be useful in making EFI-reliant software run on BIOS machines. Hmmmm...
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, would it be possible to use the standby or hibernate-to-disk capabilities to have near-instantaneous switching between the two operating systems?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, now who thinks that because of this move Apple will end up being able pull in a nice number of potential Windows PC buying customers? And maybe regain quite a bit of the share of the software/hardware market?
Posts: 879 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alcon, windows runs with a separate boot loader all the time; when dual booting Linux, commonly GRUB nowadays. Switching boot loader is (relatively) trivial. Most of the time, windows ignores the BIOS and deals right with the hardware.
Virtualization means a lot more than using a different boot loader and having a few faked BIOS capabilities.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not virtualization. XP will still run BIOS, and it looks like if Windows is installed, it'll be an independent install on a separate partition.
I'm amazed. I never saw this coming -- and it's brilliant, really. I thought Apple would forever maintain their feverish integration between their hardware and their software. Macs, despite my distaste for them, are often fantastically powerful machines. If Windows boots on them, the general public has no more excuse not to buy them -- and the more people that carry around laptops loaded with OSX, the greater OSX's diminutive marketshare has to grow.
I can see risks in the long-term, but OSX has nowhere to go but up right now. This was genius.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slow down boys and girls. Question: Will the oft touted power of the Mac lend itself to the newly available Windows OS? That's all that concerns me, and if that concern is unfounded, Apple has found itself an interested customer.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's ENORMOUSLY in Apple's best interest to let Windows run poorly and slowly on their hardware. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: not at all. They make their money on the hardware; if some people prefer to run Windows on the hardware, that's not a big deal for them. They'll lose some associated sales, but they wouldn't be getting those anyways if someone wasn't interested in OS X, plus the biggest associated sale, an iPod, isn't ruled out.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Tom's right. If people have a choice between OSX and XP on the same machine, and XP's running slower, they're going to run with -- and virally market -- OSX.
This is assuming OSX comes bundled with every Mac sold, which I assume is going to happen. Apple'll PERMIT Windows installation -- but I don't think it feels any particular need to ensure Windows performance.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My next machine just might be a dual-core mac laptop.
I've always wanted a Mac, but I've always found things I hated about OSX/Classic. Hopefully this gets to the point where I can purchase and not have to worry about anything. Examples: Not being able to play games, Not being able to do something I find simple on windows.
My main reason for staying with windows for so long is because I know how to do everything that I would ever need to do (Kill virii, kill anything, and tons of other stuff I won't really get into: debug, lowlevel stuff, programming...)
Tom: I find it more important to them that they get Windows running faster than any other hardware. As others have pointed out, Apple is a hardware company.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Time will tell if Tom's right, but from what I've been reading, game performance is about what you'd expect were the machines manufactured by some other company. Given that, Brad Oliver of Aspyr had this to say:
quote:It almost certainly spells the end of Mac ports for games that use things we can't license and cause cross-platform issues. GameSpy, DirectPlay - games that use these and end up crippled on the Mac are likely going the way of the dodo as far as Mac-native versions go. Similarly, games that ship with important, but very Windows-centric, editor components are likely out of the running. We'd be foolish to try and ship these things with Mac-only networking now if you can just dual-boot.
Looking back on previous games, these issues would affect Neverwinter Nights (editor), Tiger Woods (networking), Age of Empires (networking), Civ3 (networking and possibly the editor), C&C Generals (networking), Alpha Centauri (networking), EverQuest (networking, although this was never a technical limitation), and Star Wars Battlefront (GameSpy). There are probably other games that were network-crippled, but I don't keep track of those.
Looks like there's an Intel Mac in my future if I wish to continue gaming on my computer. I'm not sure I feel bad about that -- I've been dying to play Half-Life since it came out. Of course, since I've sworn off buying any sort of first-revision hardware from Apple, it'll be a long time before I can buy what I want and configure it how I'd like. I'm also more interested in true virtualization than in dual-booting, but on the other hand, true virtualization would be bringing OS X a little too close to OS/2 territory for my comfort.
I suppose that means there's no reason to revise my plan to buy an Xbox 360.
Added: Some benchmarks are starting to trickle in:
The A64 3500+ is 2.2GHz, and 2.16GHz Core Duo's CPU score is almost exactly double the A64's. You can clearly see the difference between the MBP's mobile GPU and a desktop GPU, though.
Of course, this is all just preliminary -- so far all of the benchmarks I've seen have just been random people reporting results without necessarily disclosing full configuration details (e.g. system memory on the Athlon system above). I'm sure that Anandtech and/or Ars Technica will get around to doing a full suite of rigorous benchmarking sooner or later, though, and I'll definitely be curious to see how Apple's Power Mac replacement benches under Windows.
posted
Lalo: no, Tom's wrong. It completely misses Apple's business model, and the character of customers.
Specifically, almost nobody chooses a computer because of speed. This is abundantly born out by the direction computer capabilities have been going in. Similarly, almost nobody chooses an OS because of speed nowadays, and there's no reason they're suddenly going to start to when OS X and XP run on the same box; that doesn't make any sense.
However, there is a large market for Mac-inclined people who feel a need to have windows around for some reason or another. Many of these people already have macs, and already have windows boxes, but see no reason to upgrade their macs (a perennial problem for apple; used machines remain useful for a very long time). This gives them a considerable incentive to do so, particularly if both the mac and windows box are a bit behind on specs, but only so long as the mactel is capable of running windows within the limits of user distinguishability.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, I can envision a circumstance where Apple might not put much effort into making XP run well on Macs. If benchmarking OS X and XP on the same hardware reveal OS X's performance deficiencies in certain areas (e.g. OpenGL, MySQL), Apple certainly won't want to highlight those deficiencies by releasing optimized XP drivers for their particular components.
I'm not just talking about benchmarking on Macs, either, since these sorts of comparative benchmarks are also possible on some "PCs." For example, Ars' Intel iMac review had OS X benchmarks on both the iMac and a Dell system.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I'll also add that you can't currently run OS X on any non-Mac machine. Now, by buying a Mac, you get twice as many possibilities. What if, some day, you want to edit your own home videos -- and you know the Mac will be better for that?
A Mac is now a machine that does it all.
Voila. I think Mr. Jobs learned his lesson.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, Apple's always had a flexible relationship with benchmarks. They just don't publicize any benchmarks that disagree with them and hype those that agree with them. Also, they've pretty much ditched benchmarks as a marketing strategy and have been focusing on application value-added.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, this has got me scratching my head. Intel releases its chip logics to software companies so that they can design their programs to be compatible with the chip. So does this mean that Mac and PC are using the same chip logic, ie essentially the same chip? Or that PC programs won't run well on a Mac?
And is Apple's sudden alliance with Microsoft programs an attempt to kill Linux?
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Yes, but they don't *market* PCs that way. It's just techies who know how to do that. This, on the other hand, could make an impression with the people at large.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, there is a large market for Mac-inclined people who feel a need to have windows around for some reason or another.
And, again, it's in Apple's best interest to have Windows on these machines run less well than OS X. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it interesting that the new Mac Book Pro is the fastest laptop in the world for running windows.
Which makes me wonder why Apple would go out of their way to make windows work less efficiently when they can make the claim that Apple hardware is the fastest platform for running windows?
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps the benifits could be shown this way.
For Apple:
Apple makes a lot of money off of their computers. It comes with OS X. Now there's some people (like me) who don't want to solo on just OSX. I don't want a limited library of software for a computer that costs a lot more than just a simple Dell that comes with Windows.
However, they release Boot Camp, people buy Macs for the ability of Windows as well, (For software variability, and the chance to try the 'Apple Experience'.)
So, Apple sells more Macs by new customers, they make more money.
Microsoft:
They can only get Windows running on a Mac without Boot Camp in a very icky way. But put simply, now anyone who wants both systems on the same computer can now buy their Mac and then buy a copy of Windows that didn't come with the Mac.
People buy more Windows, they make more money.
It's in both companies best interest for this to happen. They both make money!
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Less well", certainly, but they've already done that; its called OS X .
I'm bemused by the weird obsession you have with speed of operation, Tom. What makes you think Mac users are so fixated on speed that once windows can run on the same hardware at a reasonable rate they'll suddenly decide it was Windows they wanted to use this whole time?
And of course, there's the simple fact that by all reports, even in this initial beta release, Windows is already running at perfectly normal speeds, completely undermining your position.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My position is that they don't want to make Windows run at a lower rate.
They want to appeal to new markets. They want to get those users who've used only PCs into their hardware. If there were reports of how Windows didn't run as well, how would they be convincing that people should buy a Mac and also be able to use Windows.
Apple wants money. They appeal to a new customer base while retaining their old group of followers. They gain money.
Microsoft sells more copies of Windows to Mac users. They make more money.
I think this is one of those situations where everyone wins. Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how a slower running Windows is in Apple's best interest. Once word gets around that Windows is for crap on a Mac, people will go back to buying the same way they always did, and will simply ignore a Mac.
The money to be made for Apple is to lure away people who use PCs with Windows into buying a dual Mac system. They have nothing to gain by simply providing compadibility to people who already use Macs. All that does is give Microsoft some random profits from people who buy Windows.
The aim would be to lure away PC users. Personally, if I knew a Mac could run Windows as well as, or better than, my Dell, I'd very highly consider getting a Mac for it's video editing software. But if I knew it was just a lure, and it was really crap and didn't run well, then I'm not going to buy it. And if that's the case, then what is this other than just a publicity stunt and attempt to raise their share value?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Parallels is offering a beta program that does true virtualization.
"Parallels Workstation 2.1 Beta for Mac OS X is NOT simply a "dual-boot" solution; rather, it empowers users the ability to use Windows, Linux and any other operating system at the same time as Mac OS X, enabling users to enjoy the comfort of their Mac OS X desktop while still being able to use critical applications from other OSes."
It's apparently taking advantage of a virtualization technology featured in Intel's new chip. Intel describes it as "allowing a platform to run multiple operating systems and applications in independent partitions."
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm bemused by the weird obsession you have with speed of operation, Tom.
You realize I AM a network admin, right, and not a tool?
So when you're talking about "speed," what do you mean? UI responsiveness? Network traffic? I assume you're not talking about OpenGL, which was what I was talking about.
That Parallels thing is awesome. I'm really curious to learn more about how it works, not to mention how well it works.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a video of Parallels running on a computer. It doesn't really show too much, mostly internet surfing and a Windows reboot, but it does appear to be pretty good at handling those tasks.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: you can play games on it. That's all the Mac has been missing for decades. You can now play Oblivion on it, and rather decent from what I've read.
I personally would be interested in it because If I bought some 3D software license I'd want to be able to use it on a portable machine, which I'd have excluded any Apple hardware because I wanted to be able to run it on my Windows Desktop.
The point is that it can run any windows software and at decent speeds. not that it isn't exactly as fast. Even though it should run just as fast if not better than most recent generations of ma/pa's dell. But that it CAN and do a good job.
At this point it's all just x86 compatible hardware anyways. I see no point to you saying that it'll be slower than any other x86 compatible hardware of similar specs. Because that's impossible.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom's suggesting that Apple has and/or will intentionally cripple Windows on its hardware to make OS X look better. Added: That definitely isn't impossible, though so far it doesn't look as though they've done it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in order to do that, they would have to add hardware could detect the os, and tell it to slow down in such a state. All which takes way to much effort if they are really just worried about making a good computer and operating system for their customers. This is Apple we are talking about, not Microsoft.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You realize I AM a network admin, right, and not a tool?
Heeee... this isn't directed at you, Tom, but I have known way too many "network admins" not to laugh at this statement. Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raventh1: Well, in order to do that, they would have to add hardware could detect the os, and tell it to slow down in such a state. All which takes way to much effort if they are really just worried about making a good computer and operating system for their customers. This is Apple we are talking about, not Microsoft.
Using Boot Camp installs Apple-specific Windows drivers as part of the XP install. All Apple would need to do is refrain from optimizing those drivers; if they happen to be drivers for any performance-related hardware (e.g. graphics drivers), there could easily be a discernible difference in benchmarks.
I'm not saying that they'll do it, and I'm not sure I even agree with Tom that it would be a good idea, but the notion is not entirely implausible.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that most of the things that need to be optimized are things like ATi drivers which are usually not optimized by Apple themselves. Many other vendors are included, I'm using ATi because it's well known.
I'm saying it'd be too much trouble to go out of their way to harm XP. Not to mention that Apple appears to have good customer relations, and I don't see them wanting to annoy paying customers.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Drivers for things like video chipsets are generally provided by Apple even when they're actually developed by someone else, and then included in Apple's software updates. This is one of the things that comes along with Apple's "whole widget" philosophy, and it's very different from the way things are in the Windows world. [Added: To be clear, that's not to say that you can never get drivers from third parties. You're just a lot more likely to get them from Apple even when you can get them elsewhere, becasue Apple rolls them into the automatic updates since it controls the hardware configurations.]
ATi is a perfect example of this, actually. The Windows drivers for the Mobility Radeon 1600XT that's in the MacBook Pro are Mac-specific drivers, not ATi's normal Windows drivers, and as far as I'm aware the only way to get those drivers is by downloading Boot Camp from Apple. Any future updated versions will most likely be delivered solely by Apple via updates to Boot Camp.
Added: So Apple doesn't have to go out of its way to "harm" XP. All it has to do is refrain from doing some work, or even refrain from distributing the work of others, if ATi should happen to update those drivers without Apple asking them to (which is doubtful).
Do I think they'll do this? No. But I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that they might.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
OnMac.net has been around for a bit and let's you do the same thing. I was surprised that apple decided to build it into Jaguar though.
I was personally skeptical about using 3rd party programs to run windows on mac machines because I thought it would limit performance, but now I'm seriously considering a mac. The only thing that was stopping me in the first place is the money I sank into software that was only available for Windows, but those are starting to become obsolete now too.
posted
MacBook Pro users can't right-click in Windows, though presumably that could be readily fixed with something like USB Overdrive.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, trying to find out who leaked a trade secret means one hates bloggers and forum writers. Clearly.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Of course, since I've sworn off buying any sort of first-revision hardware from Apple, it'll be a long time before I can buy what I want and configure it how I'd like. I'm also more interested in true virtualization than in dual-booting, but on the other hand, true virtualization would be bringing OS X a little too close to OS/2 territory for my comfort. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Microsoft
