Windows on Mac - What Does It Mean?
Windows running on a Mac? “God forbid!” the purists might say. But it’s happened and the flood gates are open, thanks to two elite geeks, “narf” and “blanka”.
AppleTalk Australia scooped an interview with one of them, blanka, (whose real name is Jesus Lopez - let the jokes begin about how it took Jesus to get Macs and Windows together). If you haven’t read it, it is interesting. Like all good geeks, what drove him and narf to try, was the claim it was impossible. Impossible to geeks means lots of low level coding, as he says:
- The consensus on running XP on a Mac was that it was impossible. Proving something thought impossible is actually possible is quite enticing. I like solving hard problems.
- It had been a while since I had done any significant low-level code programming. It’s always good to remember the good ol’ times
I tip my hat to them both, and thank them. In my household, there’s always the occasional CD or DVD that needs Windows.
I also watched the vidcast of Leo Laporte on MacBreak testing Windows XP on a Mac mini, he was simply stunned to see Windows running on a Mac, a feeling we’ll all experience in time. For a lot of us, we’ll have mixed feelings, partly overjoyed to not have to have a Dell or some such laying around the house or office for the occasions we needs Windows, but also a feeling of guilt and betrayal.
Besides those feelings of awe and guilt, what is the impact of Windows on Mac? What questions and doubts remain?
Does this implementation of Windows on Mac breach the Windows EULA?
The consensus is no. I don’t have a copy of the EULA to verify it, but Microsoft’s silence would also indicate it’s legal.
Is this Open Sourcing the Mac?
This is interesting because the Mac is, from a hardware standpoint, a closed shop. Apple provides hardware and the drivers. On Windows, the hardware vendors provide the drivers as well as Microsoft providing many of its own, and generic ones. Whereas on Linux, many drivers, especially early in its life, came from the developer community.
It’s quite possible we will see a repeat of that with Windows for Mac. Given the uber-geek loves nothing more than hardware level coding, its probable the Intel Mac will sell to this crowd. Particularly as the uber-geek’s second favorite thing to do with a computer is run multiple operating systems. It could easily become a badge among the geek community to have a computer running all three of the major desktop OSes. Of course, any geek worth his or her silicon, will have many more than that. Although I might add, it would be more likely that those elite geeks would probably have a hacked version of OS X running on a PC.
Will it sell more Macs?
Undoubtedly. Who to? How about:
- As mentioned, those who want to run the three main OSes just because they can;
- Me and many like me who from time to time need to run some things in Windows but at full speed;
- Mac Shops who previously ran AutoCAD or other Windows only apps on genuine PCs.
Will Win-Shops buy in?
Not likely because of zero support from Apple. But in a site with sufficient geek resources on-staff, Windows on Macs might start making inroads, just as Linux did five years ago in the server room.
Will Apple maintain compatibility?
Compatibility is not a word Apple is overly familiar with. Even one iPod to the next has compatibility issues. So don’t be surprised if next year’s Mac can’t run this years Windows for Mac - despite Apple executives claiming Apple would not deliberately prevent Windows from running on Macs. We’ve seen with the EFI support, that this also means Apple is not even going to try to make it one iota easier.
Will it affect sales of Virtual PC and other virtualization software?
It will to some extent, but many folks will still want Windows and OS X running simultaneously. If Microsoft can get an Intel Mac version of Virtual PC into our hands quickly, and one that is optimized to take full advantage of the CPU, dual booting may become irrelevant for many people. The same applies to the other virtualization developers.
Will Microsoft support it?
Now this is possibly the most interesting question of all. Windows on Mac has now happened. It could affect sales of Virtual PC, especially in the short term. Do Gates, Ballmer and co at Microsoft, in their benevolence, simply shrug their shoulders and say “Oh well, win some lose some.”? Hardly. Probably Microsoft will make it easy to put Windows on Macs. Maybe we’ll even see a service pack with drivers supporting Mac hardware. Microsoft isn’t one to let a sales opportunity slip. The door is open and many people are going to charge through it. I can see Microsoft quite happily standing on the other side, selling genuine “Windows for Mac”. It’s not like it’s going to be much work for them.
Will it hurt Apple in the long run?
No. It’s not going to lure Mac users back to Windows and in fact will lead to more people experiencing the Mac, especially the important ones. The geeks. The guys in the back room, the guys who five or so years ago, got Linux into the corporate server rooms of the world.
Windows on Macs is going to put Macs in the hands of geeks (as well as hacked versions of OS X on PCs), and when geeks switch, the rest of the world follows. That is what happened with Linux - and if Linux had the application support from commercial vendors such as Adobe and Microsoft, it would have already achieved significant desktop marketshare.
Apple also obviously doesn’t think Windows on Mac poses a threat, otherwise the Macs would have been built to reject Windows.
Apple planted the seed, but left it to the likes of blanka and narf to water and care for it. With the geek community nurturing it, this new Apple tree looks like bearing much fruit.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
I agree that it doesn’t hurt Apple, but I’m not so sure I agree with the idea that it helps them. The biggest barrier for most in getting a Mac, including the geeks, is price. That hasn’t really changed. While some may see it as less expensive to dual boot Windows on Mac hardware, most of them probably already have existing hardware on which to run Windows.
I’m still waiting for a solid solution to booting the current version of OS X on generic PC hardware. THEN you’ve really got something.
You might like to read this then;
http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cultofmac/index.blog?entry_id=1441579
I’m still waiting for a solid solution to booting the current version of OS X on generic PC hardware. THEN you’ve really got something.
Ain’t that the truth, Beeb!
Thanks for the link Ben, that certainly adds another reason why people might run Windows on a Mac.
The Cult of Mac spin on that article is a little incomplete and therefore misleading.
In a head to head competition, the Macbook Pro beat out an Acer Travelmate by 1 second on a PS CS2 script test (1:11 to 1:10). What they don’t say is that the same Acer beat the Macbook by a full 30 seconds on a Windows Media encode test. Cult of Mac also fails to point out that the Macbook Pro is a 2.16 Ghz Core Duo compared to the 2.0 Ghz Acer (they mistakenly state that the processors are identical), and that the Acer costs over $500 LESS.
WIth the delay of Vista, Apple would be nuts not to support and build in the capability for Intel Macs to run XP.
That’s the opening Apple needs now. Go for it if they are smart.
I’m booting OSX 10.4.5 on a generic Intel clone, Pentium IV 1.8 gHz.
Would probably run better if I had more RAM and 7200 RPM HD, but it runs admirably . . .
How long is this myth about the ‘high cost of Apple hardware’ going to persist?!?
You would think that the geek community and reasonably knowledgeable people would understand that when you compare computers that are similarly configured and are manufactured by real companies (vs. a white box constructed in someone’s garage) that the costs are virtually the same.
See here for details - http://systemshootouts.org/
How long is this myth about the ‘high cost of Apple hardware’ going to persist?!?
I guess since it’s not actually a myth and is empirically true, then it’s going to persist as long as Apple’s hardware prices are higher.
The problem with the “myth” arguments by, invariably, Mac fanatics is that they always compare the Mac to Dell, as if Dell is the only hardware manufacturer. And they end up throwing almost everything at those machines, severely padding the cost with what most consumers will never buy. Like a $119 security upgrade (huh?) and a $160 2 yr at-home warranty (the Mac only comes with one).
Also, there are other less expensive but just as reliable brands out there. And that’s really one big advantage in the PC world. If you want a big brand like Dell, you can get it. If you want to shop around and get some bargains, you can do that too. Heck, even if you shop only at Dell, you can customize a wide range of machines to anything you want.
I’m booting OSX 10.4.5 on a generic Intel clone, Pentium IV 1.8 gHz.
Reeeeallllly…? That’s not that pre-release test version of OS X, is it?
Ahem***e-mail me***cough, cough.
I guess since it’s not actually a myth and is empirically true, then it’s going to persist as long as Apple’s hardware prices are higher.
Right. Sod this, I’m going to go a proper comparison since no-one else can be bothered.
I’m going to go a proper comparison since no-one else can be bothered.
To some extent, of course, any comparison can be manipulated. The comparison above is a perfect example. But if we accept that their comparison is mostly equal, then simply subtracting the items I’ve mentioned makes the Dell system hundreds of dollars cheaper but with more hardware features (4 USB ports to the Mac’s 2, a bigger harddrive, more battery life, etc).
Where they really make inexplicable pads is with software, like a Turbo Tax upgrade for $20, the aforementioned 2 yr warranty upgrade for $160, Corel Office for $99, etc.
And even then, the Dell comes out only $9 more expensive. But the comparison is supposed to be about hardware, not software. And most of those software upgrades are dubious at best.
At the end of the day, however, I don’t see what difference it really makes. Macs are a premium product. So what? They’re more expensive. Someone has to be. And most people who buy Macs aren’t simply comparison shopping. They’re buying a Mac out of a deliberate decision to do so. Sometimes you have to pay a premium for that decision.
Computers are like prostitutes. The best ones are more expensive than the cheaper ones. You can try and compare them side by side and dress up the cheaper ones as much as you like, but at the end of the day, the premium ones are still the better ones.