So where some thought Apple might license the OS to PC manuracturers under the guise of

'We tried to stop them but they keep hacking it so we're giving them what they want'

It now seems they might do it the other way around, and attract PC users to a machine that can run multiple OS, or maybe both. (or none)

Can't be bad for hardware sales.

It seems that Apple is going into the Hardware Business, with OS being a secondary buisness. The one thing that Apple computers or products bring is a nice design. There are many common people out there, like my 62 old mother, that loves the design of my iMac but is too use to Windows XP and the programs. Now she will be able to get an iMactel with Windows XP installed. Now you start having the best of both worlds. Will it compete against Windows OS? I think it will help Windows OS. Assuming Mactel owners pay for a copy of Windows XP (verus pirated), it will bring MS a new stream of revenues. Who will it compete with? It will compete with Dell, Gateway, and all the other computer makers.

As a user this is welcome news. I no longer have to switch to a PC when I want to play games or use some other PC only App. It may cut the number of computers I buy every year in half. If this is true, Dell is going to miss me

Many would argue that Apple has always been in the hardware business - Apple just creates software and an OS to sell that hardware. Certainly the hardware is where the margins have always been.

I wonder if other PC manufacturers are going to call foul and claim Apple is engaging in anti-competitive practices with this.

Apple is not getting into the Hardware business, they've always been a Hardware company. The OS was only a way to sell the hardware. Remember that tis is the reason may people say you don't want to license or allow OS X to run on PCs -- you kill the value of your company.

Given Gate's recent memo pointing to the problems M$ faces with internet software, Apple cannot and should not be a software company.

As such, this new patent is just what apple needs. It will allow those who love apple hardware design or are interested in trying OS X to make the plunge while retaining the ability to use their standard windows apps (or at least their legacy apps). Nice move, if you ask me.

How is running WinXP on Mac hardware the best of both worlds?!?! That makes NO SENSE what so ever. It's not like its impossible to buy a PC made out of quality components or something. My god man, I'm sorry but thats like the stupidest thing I have read in a long time. Do you have any clue about anything at all?!?

And buying a Mac with WinXP installed? Dude. Are you serious? Dumb dumb dumb. Ugh.

I struggle to see the way this could be perceived as anti-competitive. Apple is aparently planning to sell desktop computers based on Intel processors. Nothing new. They are not leveraging any monopoly to gain or sustain market share there; on the contrary, they are attempting to crack a market that is, by some definitions, completely new for them (Windows-based computers). What they will provide is (in addition to the attractive design, which may give them competitive edge) a hardware/software combination which should make running multiple OSses easier and more elegant. Essentially, nothing more that what some VARs are already doing by bundling third-party software with the no-name beige-boxes.

As for Apple's business and revenues, it shouldn't change anything. Loyal OSX user base will continue to use OSX; hardly anyone with the new MacTel will switch from OSX to Win (if they were a Mac OS user already). Macs (the hardware) will gain absolute marketshare, which should provide a foundation for a 'halo' effect of sorts; you buy a beautiful MacTel to run Win XP (not ever having used Mac OS X and initially not being interested), then you realise you already paid for the OS that everybody praises for security and stability; you decide to give it a shot; you're hooked; you slowly abandon your Win XP. While the scenario might not seem to become quite mainstream, it just might be one of several different (and unrelated) factors to drive OS X marketshare (iPod 'halo' being another, for example). I don't see a bad thing here.

Quote

Guest wrote:
It seems that Apple is going into the Hardware Business, with OS being a secondary buisness.

Apple has ALWAYS been in the hardware business...

Apple has a history of being a systems company. Software and hardware closely tied together as one system. They're expanding into a consumer electronics and becoming the first new media "broadcaster" (of significance).

To say they are a *hardware* company is to dumb down what they do to the point of ignoring a huge part of their business as well as the reasons why they have a relatively successful hardware business.

Biff, take a PowerBook with you somewhere and try firing up any number of Windows-only apps that many of us have to run (some verticle, some off-the-shelf) and tell us again how dumb it would be to be able to run Windows or Windows apps directly on a Mac. I would pay $$$ for this ability as well as upgrade most of my existing Macs for this.

It sure seems like Apple is positioned to be able to run Windows in a virtual environment that is much more like Classic than it is like VirtualPC...fast and fully compatible. The ***HUGE*** problem with this is that it disincentivizes vendors from developing OS X native applications. On the other hand...it sure seems like Apple itself is offering most of the best apps these days on the Mac.

It's a tough call. What I really want is for *me* to be the only one able to run Windows like Classic on my Mac, but if that can't happen then, Apple needs to find a way to make it painful enough to run Windows within OS X that a significant number of people refuse to do so such that vendors will continue to develop OS X native apps.

Though a really cool idea would be if Apple could release dual binary developer tools. Imagine if apps could be written once and then compiled for both native Windows and native OS X as a dual binary. This would allow Apple to open the door to running existing Windows apps in a Classic like environment without the risk of losing OS X native development.

It could also create incentive for vendors to develop for OS X where they weren't before as well as make it easier for switchers to come to the Mac platform.

Quote

Biff wrote:
How is running WinXP on Mac hardware the best of both worlds?!?! That makes NO SENSE what so ever. It's not like its impossible to buy a PC made out of quality components or something. My god man, I'm sorry but thats like the stupidest thing I have read in a long time. Do you have any clue about anything at all?!?

And buying a Mac with WinXP installed? Dude. Are you serious? Dumb dumb dumb. Ugh.

Just because you can't see the benefit doesn't mean it's dumb, perhaps it's the other way around.

A Mac that can run Windows, as long as it is a high enough spec, is EXACTLY what I want/need and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of user feel the same.

Quote

Biff wrote:
How is running WinXP on Mac hardware the best of both worlds?!?! That makes NO SENSE what so ever. It's not like its impossible to buy a PC made out of quality components or something. My god man, I'm sorry but thats like the stupidest thing I have read in a long time. Do you have any clue about anything at all?!?

And buying a Mac with WinXP installed? Dude. Are you serious? Dumb dumb dumb. Ugh.

Who do you think all those people are who are buying Virtual PC right now? It doesn't even work that well and lots of people use it anyway.

Being able to put Windows inside of OS X on an Intel Mac would be like having a Virtual PC that actually WORKS. I bet a lot of people would go for that, including me.

Right now I have a Powermac which is my main home computer that I also use for video editing. Next to it I have an old Dell that I use for running a few old windows games and some other little programs that are not made for Mac. I've tried Virtual PC and it just won't run any of them well.

If I could get a Windows emulation mode that DID run those programs well it would take about 3 seconds for me to toss the Dell in the trash and replace it with an Intel-iMac. I would LOVE to do that 'cause then I could have all the benefits of having 2 Macs (all my iCal, Address Book, Safari info synced, for starters) and I'd still be able to run those dumb little programs I just can't give up.

Sounds like a good idea to me!

Genius, I wish someone else had thought of it. Oh that's right DEC did.

DEC did this with their Alpha systems and it worked well. We bought one type of server and disk farm and ran OpenVMS, UNIX, or Win NT depending on the application we needed. Apple could do the same...a single hardware manufacturer running any type of OS necessary to host any application. They will pick up more system sales in complex work environments requiring many specialized applications.

Ahhh Yes! An argument worthy of Aristotle himself. Let me guess, you are a die hard Mac OS user.

The first world, is OS X and Apple Hardware. Praised for its stability and security. Disdained for high price and the lack of software, compared to Windows, mainly in the gaming side. Also, the hardware is very elegant.

The second world, is Windows XP. Praised for the large user base, large hardware base, and programs. Disdained for the lack of stability and secruity.

The possiblities increase when you can run both OS X and Windows XP on Apple hardware. The elegant design of the Hardware. The ability to run programs that are only Windows XP at native CPU speed (verus the emulation slowing things down). Even some websites that are optimized for MS programs become avaiable. (Try viewing video on the MSN websites or Nick Jr. website)

Sorry guys I think you misunderstood my point. Which means you misunderstood that moron I was bitching at. I totally think the idea of being able to multiboot is cool and I agree that will be more reliable that Virtual PC.

That stupid dumb ass said now his grandma could have the best of both worlds i.e. Windows XP would somehow be better on Apple hardware. THAT is stupid. THAT makes no sense. That's what I was complaining about. Not the fact that you could run WinXP on a Mactel. That's cool. Just the idea that you would somehow gain something by running WinXP on a Mac PC as opposed to some other PC made from quality parts is stupid. That that dumb ass thinks Apple is going to sell Macs with WinXP on them and that is stupid.

Quote

Biff wrote:

That stupid dumb ass said now his grandma could have the best of both worlds i.e. Windows XP and awesome top quality Apple hardware. THAT is stupid. THAT makes no sense.

Well...

It makes no sense insomuch as OS X is the wiser CHOICE. But he made it pretty clear that ol' grandma ain't gonna give up Windows, so in his case it's not a choice at all.

So faced with that fact, we have two choices:

1) Windows on an iMac
2) Windows on some other computer

I gotta say, given those two choices I think #1 is a much nicer option. I mean, the iMac is a pretty nice look'n machine.

I TOTALLY agree, Biff, that both of those choices blow monkey chunks over using OS X, so for most of the population, limiting yourself to those 2 choices is dumb.

But hey, grandma is grandma and I know how hard it can be to change her mind. So given all that I don't have a big problem with that post in that EXACT situation as he set it up.

Biff you need to consider decaf u jackass.

I guess if all Grandma cares about is that the Intel iMac looks cool and Grandma doesn't mind paying a small premium to subsidize the development of an OS she doesn't use, then I guess thats her choice. Still there's no reason she couldn't find some other PC thats built in a cool looking case. There is nothing specifically gained by buying a Mac if your intention is to run WinXP only.

Inside, I doubt there will be any technology that could not just as easily be purchased in another PC probably for slightly less. So what you end up with is WinXP running on an Intel machine using top quality PC hardware. Wow thats amazing.

So yeah not saying that someone won't buy a Mac to run WinXP on it. But that guy seems to think its some big new amazing thing thats going to change the World as we know it. And well thats dumb. So I assume he's dumb. That's all.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Biff you need to consider decaf u jackass.

Hehe, sorry man. It's just that dumb people are one of my pet peeves.

Quote

Biff wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
Biff you need to consider decaf u jackass.

Hehe, sorry man. It's just that dumb people are one of my pet peeves.

You might want to look in the mirror. To win an argument you have to start with logic. Calling people dumb with no substance to back it up doesn't persuade anybody.

Lets start with "Running only Windows XP on Apple Hardward is not good because ..." Please persuade me why I should not run Windows XP only on a Mactel.

Try reading my last substantial post. Or at least comprehending it. I'm sorry if I have confused you. As I stated in that post, if you wanna run just WinXP on Apple hardware then knock yourself out. What I said was that you will not gain any specific advantage that could not be found in non-Apple hardware. And that is true. If you disagree, then please provide an example. I won't hold my breath.

And that is the basis for my original point which was that since that guy apparently thinks there is some amazing novel thing to be gained by running WinXP on Apple hardware, then he does not understand computers very well. And despite the fact that he does not understand computers very well, he decided to spout a bunch of misinformation into a post anyhow. Pet peeve. Nasty post from me. The rest is history.

Just finished reading this link http://www.architosh.com/news/2005-11/2005a1108_tb-multi-os.html

According to the link, which is about Apple patent, it does suggest Windows XP can run as the sole OS on the Mactel. You can futher interpet that you can have Windows XP running primary and Linux running secondary, with OS X not installed. The question arises; will Apple sell Mactel with OS X and have the user purchase Windows XP or Linux (you name the author) from a retailer or will they have a pull down window (on the apple web store front) and select which OS to purchase. Another leading question is; will MS give Apple OEM discount for Windows XP or make them install retail version.

"limiting yourself to those 2 choices is dumb."


Not really sure what the other choices for Windows are. To me it looks like two choices: Windows on Mactel or Windows on some other computer. Other than using OS X on iMac, what are the other choices?

Biff,

I was the one that wrote the "Dumb" comment. What is so dumb about wanting to run Windows XP on a iMactel? The iMac is the most elegant looking computer I have seen. If you can direct me to a Computer Company that sells a PC that looks exactly like the iMac. Please don't give me it "almost looks like an iMac" BS. A Hyundai Sante Fe almost looks like a Porsche Cayenne, but trust me a Hyundai is not a Prosche.

"Windows XP would somehow be better on Apple hardware. THAT is stupid. THAT makes no sense." "Just the idea that you would somehow gain something by running WinXP on a Mac PC as opposed to some other PC made from quality parts is stupid"

Are you suggesting that Apple uses substandard parts? That is what I get from you statement. If Apple is using substandard parts, I am amazed that they are still in business.

I don't see why Windows XP will not run as good on an iMactel than on a Gateway or Dell. One reason Apple moved to intel is because IBM couldn't provide the speed Apple was looking for. Add that to ATI/Nivida video processor PCIe, SATA hard drives, and fast memory it would suggest that Windows XP on iMactel would be in par with Gateway or Dell.

"that dumb ass thinks Apple is going to sell Macs with WinXP on them and that is stupid"

What I have read from other posters, Apple has always been a hardware company. So, if Apple makes the highest profit margin from hardware, it would make good business sense to sell Windows XP if the comsumer wants it. Thats why Apple stores sell Virtual PC with Windows XP. The comsumers want it.


Profit is the name of the game. There are Apple fantics that will praise OS X being better than Windows XP. There will be MS fantics that will praise Windows XP as better than OS X. Now if you can have the fantics that praise Windows XP to purchase iMactel and continue to praise Windows XP, you just increased your sales revenue and profit.

The article says "he could now be gearing up to attack Windows head-on when the new Intel Macs debut next year." How is this true? If they are making it simple to run Windows they are helping the Windows market! They are attacking PC makers not windows. However, couldn't microsoft make a virtual PC type windows that is made just for mac hardware. It might make it just as stable as the Mac OS since they would be basically be just like apple being able to limit thier efforts to certain models instead of what MS has to do now and tailor everything to a million different configs.

Look people, if given two choices:

1) Death by having an iMac shoved up yer arse,

2) Death by having a Dell shoved up yer arse

I would pick choice #1 for my grandma. There aren't a lot of sharp edges on the iMac and it's just one piece. Furthermore, it has a built in camera and Photo Booth software.

Just sayin...

Here is a software engineer’s take on the patent: Using the technology described, Apple will be entirely successful in preventing MacOS X from running on standard PeeCees. (Until i read this patent, i didn’t think that would be possible.) This technology can also be used as a DRM for software, music, videos, etc. It will be very, very difficult to crack this system, and if it is cracked, a simple update will restore the DRM integrity.

Apple can offer the protection this technology affords to third parties to protect their software, thus eliminating software piracy and offering a huge incentive to write native MacOS X software. (The other incentives already are superior development environment, a better OS, and more efficient code development platform.)

This can also be used to ensure the integrity of the software already on the machine and prevent tampering (e.g. hacking, patching, viruses, etc.) In other words, it can function like a tripwire.

The other technology described in the patent sounds like the user will be able to run Linux and Windoze binaries natively under MacOS X without the need of having those OSes. In other words, the technology is similar to WINE or Darwine, taking standard calls to the target OS and transliterating them for the resident host OS (i.e. MacOS X). No dual booting; no Windoze license necessary. M$ becomes M˘.

While M$ is busy trying to catch a glimpse of Apple’s taillights in their effort to create a lame version of Tiger, or just an OS with a lower susceptibility to malware, Apple is raising the bar to a whole new level. M$ is trying to build a bi-plane while Apple is building a starship. Beam me up!

it seems to me that for the FIRST time, windows and Mac will be engaged in a fair playing field war where the best OS will win, or at least draw.
The best OS is obviously OSX (even Win fans think so), but it wont run some apps that people really want. So we switch to the crappy os for those times when we must have Crapsolate PC blood changing software or something.
Then we rush back to OSX because its just nicer to use.
Eventually, or even immediately, Crapsolate PC Inc. decide to build a version for OSX because its not too difficult to do, now that they run on Intel hardware.
And anyway, they see their customers running Windows as a kind of second-rate but necessary OS. (Which is an accurate description of Windows, I believe). They will prefer their customers to be happy, rather than irritated.
This all links in to the effect of telling the great unwashed public, (of which I am honoured to be one) that there is no NEED to choose, you can have nice X and shitty windows on the same machine.
Apple may not smash Windows, but they can draw level, I suggest.

Sounds like Apple are getting v. smart these days.......'bout time; Gates is a moron after all, shouldnt be too difficult to beat his game.

I posted on this months ago.

~ Realty Check

Guys, I like this saga, very stimulating.

I sit at work in a windows world, (most of us do unless we work in design etc.)
I go home and sit in the ease and beauty of the O/S X world.
I carry a lap top as I often travel.

Now, if my powerbook could F12 to XP instead of widgets when I need to work in our company database system, then for sure this would be an advantage to me. Maybe also to others?

So many corporations continue to write proprietary software for either accounting or data management and we all continue to need to use the Wintel platform and suffer the consequences.

Perhaps if more Wintel IT guys saw how they could allow the purchase of a multi-platform machine and consequently gain the benefits of both worlds, then eventually more of them would consider using the Mac platform for more than just IPhoto etc....

I for one think this is a really attractive idea and look forward to see this how it plays out...

Yep and if Grandma won't buy a mac because the learning curve is just too great, when there is no going back, she might just start to fiddle with it when it is instantly available and decide that its worth using after all and who knows may even gradually start to use it for most things so it becomes her primary operating system. Shame she dies soon after and her switching experience is lost for ever but hey thats life I suppose.

The point is, getting people to use the operating system is the biggest hurdle. More are going to do so when it is an easy option (ie its there) than if it is a less easy and expensive option (ie you have to buy a Mac that is OSX only). If they decide they don't like it then Apple still get a hardware sale. They can fight on a more even battlefield with both hardware and software fronts working together and break free from the present restraints. What on Earth could be dumb about that scenario.

Spy

Yeah Rainy Day, you got it, and so did the guy writing about DEC.

This is sweet. First they give us an interleaved X Window environment, next it's going to be running elf binaries. Oh man, just imagine being able to install from a Linux-native RPM! I'm creaming myself here. This opens up a whole nightmare world of commercial Linux apps that will Just Work™. Yeah so some stuff will want kernel hooks and $#!%, and other stuff is going to try to do something retarded with devices, but overall, this is going to be neat-o.

Grandma can go beep herself with her Mac OS XP. Give me an OS X that'll run Linux apps and I'll ...

Well, I think that being able to run Windows programs would be cool, but I wouldn't want to boot into it. It would just ruin everything... As for Biff and the guests, we have a vicious circle starting here...

Rainy Day wrote:

"The other technology described in the patent sounds like the user will be able to run Linux and Windoze binaries natively under MacOS X without the need of having those OSes. In other words, the technology is similar to WINE or Darwine, taking standard calls to the target OS and transliterating them for the resident host OS (i.e. MacOS X). No dual booting; no Windoze license necessary. M$ becomes M˘. "

Sorry, dude, not legally possible, m$ legal would jump on that like flies on S**t! If yer gonna run Windoze, ya gotta pay for the priviledge. A license IS required! If Apple will sell MacTels with Windoze or Linux or Whatever installed, they'll hafta pay the same licensing fees everybody else does!

That said, the idea of running two side-by-side OS's without having to dual boot is COOL! I can think of lotsa advantages to that one...

Quote

Guest wrote:
Rainy Day wrote:

"The other technology described in the patent sounds like the user will be able to run Linux and Windoze binaries natively under MacOS X without the need of having those OSes. In other words, the technology is similar to WINE or Darwine, taking standard calls to the target OS and transliterating them for the resident host OS (i.e. MacOS X). No dual booting; no Windoze license necessary. M$ becomes M˘. "

Sorry, dude, not legally possible, m$ legal would jump on that like flies on S**t! If yer gonna run Windoze, ya gotta pay for the priviledge. A license IS required! If Apple will sell MacTels with Windoze or Linux or Whatever installed, they'll hafta pay the same licensing fees everybody else does!

Read it again, this time for comprehension. You don't have to install Windows or Linux; with this software any applications written to use those OSs will work on the Mac OS. You're not dual- or triple-booting different operating systems. It just runs applications, like all those vertical apps written for one specific purpose that only work with Windows. This software will make that vertical app work with OSX. Get it now, or do we have to tell you a third time?

Hahaha oh man you people are absolutely amazing. No matter what I say you're never going to comprehend me are you? Wow.

At no point did I say that being able to run WinXP on a Mac is stupid. At no point did I say it would be worse to run WinXP on a Mac.

I've said two things.

1. If you are running only Windows XP as your OS, you will not gain anything specifically from running it on a Mac that could not be had from a PC built by someone else.

2. Apple will NOT sell you Windows XP. If you don't understand why, thats not my problem.

Quote

1. If you are running only Windows XP as your OS, you will not gain anything specifically from running it on a Mac that could not be had from a PC built by someone else.

I think one point they are trying to make is, they gain the ability to have a nicer looking computer on their desk. Kinda silly perhaps, but for some it's enough. Same reason people would pay more money for Bang & Olufsen when there are better performing A/V components out there for less money. It's all about the styling, and not about performance at all.

Biff:

What really bothers me about your posts - aside from the fact that I don't understand why someone who disagrees with a statement someone else makes about a computer and software needs to call them insulting names - is that the post you rant about doesn't even make the assertion you keep attacking it for. You claim the poster "said now his grandma could have the best of both worlds i.e. Windows XP would somehow be better on Apple hardware" and "that guy apparently thinks there is some amazing novel thing to be gained by running WinXP on Apple hardware."

Read his post! Nowhere does it say that XP will be better on Apple hardware, all it says is "The one thing that Apple computers or products bring is a nice design" and that there are a lot of people, like his grandmother, who love the DESIGN of apple hardware but are too set in their ways (or whatever) to switch to the Mac OS, and now they can have the best of both worlds - i.e. the OS they are comfortable with and the Apple design they have always admired. The post says nothing about Windows running better on the Apple hardware - you simply assumed that was what he menat and then attacked him for it.

Before you start calling someone names for saying something, at least make sure they actually said it - don't attack them for what YOU THINK (and obviously no one else on this board thought) they meant.

Biff, if you haven't passed the 7th grade, do not pass go, do not collect $200. One machine, your choice of operating system. You figure it out. Can your lousy PC do this? I think it will be great to only have one machine on my desk instead of two.

Since biff pet peeves is Dumb people, he must be the most intellectual person on the plant. Being so intellectual, his ability to persuade and reason is on plan so high above the rest of us mortals, that we fail to see the Genius of his arguments. It is so brillant that he fails to find words to explain it, only to write "IT IS NOT MY PROBLEM"

Biff when you finally graduate from high school or take the GED, enroll in some argumentative writting classes at a local junior college.

I read portion of the patent, which is very hard to comprehend. Please help me if I interpeted the patent wrong.


First I don't see anything that deals with emulation of Linux or Windows. What I read is that a user has the ability to load and run OS X, Windows, or Linux. This would imply that you would have to install each on of the OS.

Second, it would seem that if you where running OS X; OS X would open a window, start Windows OS, then run the program. It would seem OS X would treat Windows OS like any other OS X program. It is like when I use remote desktop on OS X to login to my Windows Machine.