The Death of Apple? Macs now to be able to run Windows XP

[Caveat Emperor]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/ptech/0....ap/index.html

I've been a Mac user for more years than I care to count. I finally caved and bought a Dell laptop 3 years ago (which just recently died -- Thanks Mike) because, at the time, our law school's wireless network was incompatible with Apple's AirPort technology.

My fear, based on this announcement, is that it completely eliminates any need for major software developers to write OSX software. Now, instead of writing a new version of Photoshop or Word for OSX, Adobe and Microsoft will just say "Eh, boot into Windows and run it there." Maybe I need to think more positively.

CUPERTINO, California (AP) -- Apple Computer Inc.unveiled on Wednesday software to help owners of its new Intel-based Macs run not only its own operating system but also Microsoft Corp.'s rival Windows XP system.

Wall Street is betting the move will help Apple grow its current worldwide market share beyond the current range of 3 percent to 4 percent by attracting more business and home users.

"It makes the Mac the most versatile computer on the market," said Tim Bajarin, a tech industry consultant at Creative Strategies.

Apple's new "Boot Camp" software, a "beta" test version available as a free download, lets computer users with a Windows XP installation disk load that system on the Mac. Users could then switch between the two operating systems -- using only one at a time -- by rebooting, a process that could take a few minutes.

Bajarin said the move should lure Windows users who "had their eye on a Mac but knew they could not run their favorite Windows programs on an Apple-based computer."

When Apple introduced its first computer based on Intel Corp. chips in January, the company said it had no intention of selling or supporting Windows on its machines, though it has not done anything to preclude people from doing it themselves.

Apple said Wednesday that stance remains true, yet the new software will ease Windows installation "by providing a simple graphical step-by-step assistant application."

"Apple has no desire or plan to sell or support Windows, but many customers have expressed their interest to run Windows on Apple's superior hardware now that we use Intel processors," Philip Schiller, senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, said in a statement.

Indeed, for months, hackers have been diligently working on programs to let users of Intel-based Macs switch between the two competing operating systems.

Apple turned to Intel chips, the same ones used to power most PCs using Windows, after saying its previous suppliers, IBM Corp. and Motorola Corp.'s spinoff Freescale Semiconductor Inc., couldn't meet Apple's needs for faster, more energy-efficient chips.

But the Intel-based Macs continued to run Apple's own proprietary operating system.

Because Windows is much more dominant, Mac users don't have access to many software programs written only for Windows. The switch to Intel chips lets users load Windows onto a Mac computer, without the need for emulation software that slows performance. But until Wednesday, the user needed some technical expertise to pull it off.

American Technology Research analyst Shaw Wu described the announcement as a "significant game changer."

The Boot Camp software makes it easier to install Windows and lets users run either Mac OS X or Windows when they restart their computer.

A final version of Boot Camp will be available as a feature in the upcoming Mac OS X version 10.5, code-named "Leopard." Apple said it will preview Leopard in August, but it hasn't yet disclosed a release date or price for the upgrade.

[KronoRed]

This is surprising, but a few weeks ago someone posted a way to boot XP on the new Macs, I'm guessing apple figured that people were going to be doing it anyway.

I can see your fear coming to pass, but as an XP person this is nice if I ever wanted to check out a mac and not make a full on commitment.

[pedro]

macas are too expensiove and apple doesn;t do enough about making things backwards compatable IMO.

[reds1869]

macas are too expensiove and apple doesn;t do enough about making things backwards compatable IMO.

I switched to Mac four years ago and completely disagree with you. We've been using the same machine the entire time, while going through 3 PCs. There has only recently been any real thought (not need, mind you) of upgrading our G4 and it has never crashed. And when I say crashed, I include locking up to the point of rebooting. In addition we can run MAC programs far older than Windows titles on our XP machine. Top that off with excellent security updates and imo great customer service. The extra dollar output was more than worth it, I'd say!

[OldRightHander]

I switched to Mac four years ago and completely disagree with you. We've been using the same machine the entire time, while going through 3 PCs. There has only recently been any real thought (not need, mind you) of upgrading our G4 and it has never crashed. And when I say crashed, I include locking up to the point of rebooting. In addition we can run MAC programs far older than Windows titles on our XP machine. Top that off with excellent security updates and imo great customer service. The extra dollar output was more than worth it, I'd say!

I have a G3 that I've been using since 1999 and all I've done is add a larger hard drive and more memory. I'm just now entertaining thoughts of getting a newer machine. I'm also still using most of the software I bought when the computer was new. As to computer prices, you get what you pay for. The last time I checked, a Mercedes costs more than a Ford too.

[StillFunkyB]

Now if you can dual boot on the Intel systems I will be very much happy.

[pedro]

I guess most of my perspective comes from being a software developer. Macs just aren't very practical in a large office environment or as a development platform for large networked systems.

I like the OS though and admit that from an elegance standpoint they are quite nice.

The backwards compatabilty issue is really more a knock at the Ipod.

[Red Heeler]

Steve Jobs should have to go second in a daily reauchambeau game with every Apple employee on a rotating basis. How anyone could take a vastly superior product and be relegated to a small niche market by the Edsel of operating systems is absolutely amazing.

[westofyou]

the Edsel of operating systems is absolutely amazing.

From my vantage point (living in the valley, software development in the business world) I'd have to say that at least the Edsel had a map to the office in the glove compartment.

[deltachi8]

Im not ver computer savy, I suse what i use and if it works I'm happpy. I never had an interest in Apple as they appeared to me (wrongly I'm sure) the hip machine - and I am far from hip or interested in being hip.

[Caveat Emperor]

Steve Jobs should have to go second in a daily reauchambeau game with every Apple employee on a rotating basis. How anyone could take a vastly superior product and be relegated to a small niche market by the Edsel of operating systems is absolutely amazing.

If I remember my Apple history correctly, it was at Steve Wozniak (who co-founded Apple with Jobs) who pushed hard for the company to market computers to schools instead of businesses. He's a real "head in the clouds" type of guy who had no business trying to run a successful company, and he believed that if kids were using Apple computers in schools, parents would buy the computers for their kids to use at home. Then, reality set in, as people bought computers that were compatible with what they used at work (DOS/Win) so they could do work at home. Then, the education market eroded for Apple as schools switched to Windows so that kids would understand how to use computers that they'd encounter in the workplace. Idiocy, thy name is Woz.

In reality, there was no way Apple could've ever made inroads into the business world. Putting aside all issues of expense (which are damning, since a business always does whatever is cheapest), the machines are just too easy to use. DOS and, later, Windows keep millions of IT people employed keeping machines in offices around the nation running. Those IT people are also charged with buying new computers and replacing equipment. It's in their best interest to keep purchasing something they know creates a sufficient amount of work for them as opposed to something with fewer problems and headaches.

[pedro]

In reality, there was no way Apple could've ever made inroads into the business world. Putting aside all issues of expense (which are damning, since a business always does whatever is cheapest), the machines are just too easy to use. DOS and, later, Windows keep millions of IT people employed keeping machines in offices around the nation running. Those IT people are also charged with buying new computers and replacing equipment. It's in their best interest to keep purchasing something they know creates a sufficient amount of work for them as opposed to something with fewer problems and headaches.

That may true on a stand alone basis CE. But I have never heard anyone say anything nice about managing a network of mac machines.

To me another big issue is that Microsoft created a path for the mainframe people to migrate to, while Mac didn't.

there just isn;t a wealth of business applications that run on Mac's.(I'm not talking word, excel, etc, but enterprise systems such as ERP, CRM etc.)

[M2]

I just sat next to Wozniak for a few minutes at a robotics competition two weekends ago. Nice guy, but CE's dead on about him having his head in the clouds.

I'm a Mac user at home. Just upgraded last fall from a G3 purchased in 1997 to an iMac G5. I use a supposedly slick Dell laptop for work. While I understand why corporations by Wintel laptops, I'd never plunk my own money down on one.

It should be interesting to see what happens when Vista comes out. From this observer's perspective, Microsoft looks utterly lost in terms of what it wants Vista to do, jamming a bunch of crap into the o/s that has no business being in the o/s (developers tools like WCF, WPF, WF to name a few).

I know Microsoft buys off a good number of analyst houses, but I fully expect the initial recommendation on Vista will be "Don't migrate."

Also, to CE's point about how Windows keeps low-level IT employees in jobs, I cover an area of enterprise technology that's focused on making systems more efficient and cutting out overhead. The metric I see regularly is that companies pay roughly 70% of their IT budget for maintenance and if they undergo an app dev revolution it could be lowered all the way down to 55%. Why such modest gains for such a huge amount of turnover? Because Microsoft makes it nearly impossible to get below 50%. The attendant costs to using Microsoft systems are huge and I'm guessing that it would probably prove easier and less expensive to get an office running on Macs than to try to maintain a Microsoft installment. You'd just have to pay more up front. Mind you, desktop Linux probably could dust them both in terms of cost and ease of maintenance in an office setting.

[Red Heeler]

If I remember my Apple history correctly, it was at Steve Wozniak (who co-founded Apple with Jobs) who pushed hard for the company to market computers to schools instead of businesses. He's a real "head in the clouds" type of guy who had no business trying to run a successful company, and he believed that if kids were using Apple computers in schools, parents would buy the computers for their kids to use at home. Then, reality set in, as people bought computers that were compatible with what they used at work (DOS/Win) so they could do work at home. Then, the education market eroded for Apple as schools switched to Windows so that kids would understand how to use computers that they'd encounter in the workplace. Idiocy, thy name is Woz.

The biggest problem was that Apple would not license the Mac OS because they feared what happened to IBM. IBM immediately lost a ton of market share in the PC business when they licensed DOS to other manufacturers who could produce cheaper machines. IIRC, the licensing issue was mostly Jobs doing. If he had chosen to allow other manufacturers to use the Mac OS, even up to a point shortly after the introduction of Windows, people would be saying "Bill who???" while using more reliable machines.

[reds1869]

Don't forget that while PCs are dominant, Apple itself is extremely profitable. Whose shoes would you rather be in: IBM or Apple? Do not confuse Microsoft with PCs from a business perspective. Microsoft and Apple both do what is best for the company--sometimes each guesses wrong.

I use both types of machine. I prefer Apple by a wide margin but will never be an Apple fanboy who refuses to use Windows computers. Whatever suits my purpose best is what I use. Macs are simply more enjoyable to use, which is why I use them at home.