Intel Mac users can now run XP -officially!
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Lazy Llama
Suburban robots that monitor reality
And for Apple. They make a lot more money from their hardware than they do from OS X. That's one reason they're so expensiveeditor said:
It's also why they don't bother copy protecting/activating the OS X upgrade disks.For Microsoft it depends whether longer term the dual-booters outweighs the Windows users who buy Macs (cos they look nice and can run Windows) and then realise they don't like/want XP any more.
The old "Mac's can't run as much software as Windows PCs" is now turned around. Buy a non-Apple machine and you don't get the choice to run OS X (officially anyway). And the MacBook Pro runs XP faster than most non-Apple competitors.
Apple just removed the single biggest reason that people don't buy Macs. Looks like they'll be selling a ton of hardware this year...
editor
hiraethified
Not really.Lazy Llama said:
Most Windows users just want a cheap machine that runs regular shit and are unlikely to fork out premium prices for Apple's 'style' (I'd argue there's equally stylish PC machines available anyway).
For most punters, there's no particularly compelling Mac-only software, so why should they change from using the cheapest option and faff about with multiple operating systems?
PS Welcome back (if you are indeed, back!)
editor said:
I don't know if that's particularly true. A lot of pc mags have waxed lyrical over the ease of Apple's consumer level ilife digital hub apps (Iphoto, iweb, imovie etc) - indeed a fair few friends would love to have something like imovie in particular on their pcs as standard.
To the prosumer or experienced pc (or even mac) user, they're probably not all that, but at a simpler level they're far more integrated and persuasive than many other branded pc packages. Sony makes some lovely machines for example, but some of the software they've packaged has been lamentable at best.
Apple's never going to compete on prices with the build your own market, but against brand name pc manufacturers who've tried to sell on ease of use and packaged 'work out of the box' bundles then there's a better chance.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
I agree with tarranau. My dad wants to get a computer to manage photos from his new DSLR, edit home moives and maybe play around with some home recording (god help us) and make flyers for his classic rock club night (not even god can help us now) - plus the usual web, email and things. I would reccomend a mac to him in a snap - all the software he needs comes included and is dead easy to use.
Lazy Llama
Suburban robots that monitor reality
Who buys most machines? I would guess businesses.editor said:
Do businesses always buy the cheapest boxes? No, not usually.
Most reasonable-sized corps seem to buy Dell or HP, maybe some Toshiba or IBM.
They tend to stick with the big names, and the conservative models because they're easier to support and don't change the components in one model everytime the wind changes direction. It's now easier to add Apple to their list of approved suppliers, which is going to help Apple and hurt Dell etc.
Apple were 5th in the sales rankings of computer sales in the US in 2005, despite their lack of major presence in corporate environments.
Lots of people say that Macs are very expensive but when i was looking round at laptops (in Bangkok) a year ago, to get everything that the 12" Powerbook (as it was then) included, the PCs weren't significantly cheaper. I was surprised as I'd kind of resigned to buying a non-Apple machine becuase it'd be cheaper.
You could get a similar spec 'PC' a bit cheaper, but it weighed more, looked like it had fallen out of the ugly tree and had the build quality of an Amstrad hifi. And usually didn't have a worldwide warranty.
Thanks, we are, indeed, back. Currently residing in sunny West Ham.
Hoping to make it down to Brixton sometime soon, if only to visit old haunts. I don't think I appreciated South London enough until I came to West Ham.
editor
hiraethified
Are businesses likely to want to take on supporting an extra OS and all the extra software and all the extra staff training costs and supplemental hassle when they've already got trained up Windows IT staff ?Lazy Llama said:
I doubt it very much.
Even I can't see any point in paying extra for a dual booting Mac instead of getting a Sony laptop or something - and I'm usually up for any kind of supplemental gadgetry - and I like the look of the iBooks!
editor said:
I have an old PC, laptop it weighs a ton, runs XP and SQL Server, Visual C++, .Net, and occasionaly I play C&C Red Alert, that's about it as far I as need to use windows.
I also have an iBook which I write music on, play gigs with, download and watch all films on my TV with, surf web, check emails, etc etc
I'm looking to buy a new PC Laptop, a nice Vaio I was thinking, but why should I bother now? when I can combine both machines into one brand spanking new macbook pro?
Apple have got themselves another sale from me...
editor said:
I can sort of justify it, I think my needs are quite specific though.
On a similar note this is very interesting: Virtualization for the (Intel) Mac?
I suppose it's like VMWare for OSX
Dask said:
Sure VMWare themselves should be looking at sorting out their products to run on OSX. Server and Workstation all run on x86-based Linux systems. Can't be a big task to alter the code for Darwin / BSD, can it?
Eh, what do I know. I'm running Redmondware after all
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Except the virtualisation for intel macs will be at the hardware level, as supported in intel's new chip architecture (conroe. or is it merom? it could be fucking bilbo baggins for all I know 
). Anyway, it means that each OS gets its own core on the CPU and runs independantly of the other - including calls to hardware, IIRC. Should be much faster than VMware, which has to simulate the virtual machine, instead of there being a real one there.
). Anyway, it means that each OS gets its own core on the CPU and runs independantly of the other - including calls to hardware, IIRC. Should be much faster than VMware, which has to simulate the virtual machine, instead of there being a real one there.Crispy said:Except the virtualisation for intel macs will be at the hardware level, as supported in intel's new chip architecture (conroe. or is it merom? it could be fucking bilbo baggins for all I know
That sounds f**king amazing. Will it only work on dual core machines though?
Crispy said:Except the virtualisation for intel macs will be at the hardware level, as supported in intel's new chip architecture (conroe. or is it merom? it could be fucking bilbo baggins for all I know
Why not see if WINE on OS X gets anywhere...? Or Crossover Office releases a version for OS X...? I'm already running Internet Explorer 6 (and Office) on Ubuntu via Crossover...
editor
hiraethified
teqniq
DisMembered
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
Definitely an interesting move by Apple, though it's not entirely unprecedented territory as they did release computers with DOS Compatibility cards that allowed you to run Win 3.1 (and later 95, but not 98) in the 1990s.
First reactions on using it from the geek crowd...
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/06/04/06/1243251.shtml
Hey, it's Windows users who say it
http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,117427,00.asp
Your Take on Windows' Worst Irritations
I remember similar criticisms of the default XP theme in early reviews in the computer press.
First reactions on using it from the geek crowd...
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/06/04/06/1243251.shtml
editor said:"Fisher Price dog's dinner of XP, " indeed.
Come on. Let's not go down this route again.
Hey, it's Windows users who say it
http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,117427,00.asp
Your Take on Windows' Worst Irritations
I remember similar criticisms of the default XP theme in early reviews in the computer press.
editor
hiraethified
First test of a Mac running Boot Camp here:
http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,125325,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp
Seems to run impressively smoothly on PC games, although it's not as fast as an Acer TravelMate laptop running XP.
http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,125325,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp
Seems to run impressively smoothly on PC games, although it's not as fast as an Acer TravelMate laptop running XP.
fear-n-loathing
drinking mouthwash
Why would needs to do this when mac OSX is much better than windows 
Similar threads
