Intel Mac users can now run XP -officially!
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
ICB said:
Entirely possible, nonetheless, common sense suggests a quicker machine will be... quicker. Notice that the HPCompaq laptop, of similar spec... runs at similar speeds.
It's a moot point, anyway, imo. There's some great deals out there on PC laptops at the moment, or you could pick up a decent deal on one of the last of the G5 iMacs, or plump for one of the Core Duos. Personally, I'd suggest to anyone that they decide what best suits their needs and budget and make their choice accordingly, not being swayed by shouts of "this is better!" or "that's shite!".
I know this: I won't be offering to support people cramming Windows onto Macs, or vice versa...
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The reason you get good deals on PCs right now is because manufacturers are scared of losing sales, as the machines they are selling are running a now very old Windows OS. So they are offering discounted deals to sell their hardware, however, if PC is the choice you take there is a major caveat:
Microsoft is developing a new OS, called Vista. it has been delayed until 2007. At present I'm not aware how well-publicised the system requirements are for Vista, but hopefully there is something on Microsoft's website.
Before buying a PC, it's wise (I think) to check if it will be able to run Vista, as three years from now I doubt if Microsoft will invest too much money delivering any significant features to older OS's as it tries to get consumers to buy Vista systems.
I suggest (but don't know for sure), that systems that will run Vista in future will cost about the same (right now) as a Mac, particularly Mac minis. (Which will run XP now, and may even run VIsta).
So I guess all I am saying is that before making price comparisons it may well be worth checking the forward migration path for any PC you choose. (And to be prepared for Vista's system requirements to change suddenly out-of-the-blue just before Microsoft's new OS ships).
Microsoft is developing a new OS, called Vista. it has been delayed until 2007. At present I'm not aware how well-publicised the system requirements are for Vista, but hopefully there is something on Microsoft's website.
Before buying a PC, it's wise (I think) to check if it will be able to run Vista, as three years from now I doubt if Microsoft will invest too much money delivering any significant features to older OS's as it tries to get consumers to buy Vista systems.
I suggest (but don't know for sure), that systems that will run Vista in future will cost about the same (right now) as a Mac, particularly Mac minis. (Which will run XP now, and may even run VIsta).
So I guess all I am saying is that before making price comparisons it may well be worth checking the forward migration path for any PC you choose. (And to be prepared for Vista's system requirements to change suddenly out-of-the-blue just before Microsoft's new OS ships).
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Ironic that many current Intel desktop systems and all AMD based systems, but as of yet no intel Macs will be able to run vista isn't it? No current intel mobile CPUs are going to be happy with vista, it's going to be 64 bit, and i'm not sure if there is going to be a castrated 32 bit version.
The main highlights are native 64 bit processing and a slightly fancier interface. It isn't going to be an instant hit since XP still works.
The main highlights are native 64 bit processing and a slightly fancier interface. It isn't going to be an instant hit since XP still works.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
Bob_the_lost said:
There are both 32 and 64 bit versions of Vista in Beta at the moment. AFAIK, the plan is to release both.
TBH, apart from a few people, I see no great benefit of running a 64-bit OS on a laptop.
A 64-bit OS will allow the OS to address more than 4GB of RAM and individual processes to address more than 2GB. People who will benefit from this are those doing high end graphics, mathematical analysis and some database applications. None of these are the kind of thing you're likely to be doing with much seriousness on a laptop processor. Programmers will see some benefits at compile time, but most people aren't writing their letters as one-off applications in C, they use Word.
32-bit apps will run slower on a 64-bit OS and you'll need *at least* 2GB of RAM installed on the computer to get it running efficiently.
It's not like the jumps from 8 to 16 to 16 to 32-bit in earlier generations. Most users wouldn't be able to see any difference for their everyday work.
Lazy Llama
Suburban robots that monitor reality
You might want to tell MS and Intel all that. MS hardware recommendations and Intel mobile and desktop Vista-capable CPUs would indicate that the Intel Macs and anything with a Core duo/solo or HT-capable CPU will be okay.Bob_the_lost said:
Of course, those are 'recommended' systems, it'll probably run on older machines too, and certainly newer ones. The graphics requirements for the fancy new interface need a DirectX 9 capable card, but again the Intel Mac's qualify.
Where things get interesting is the much-touted HDTV output. Vista will require graphics cards with encryption chips in order to output HD video. Guess how many graphics cards currently have the required chips? None. Not a single one. Want HDTV output? Better stick with your current OS or buy and Xbox 360.
Certainly wouldn't argue with that though. But it'll stop working when MS end support and stop releasing security patches 2 years after Vista is released.
Where things get interesting is the much-touted HDTV output. Vista will require graphics cards with encryption chips in order to output HD video. Guess how many graphics cards currently have the required chips? None. Not a single one. Want HDTV output? Better stick with your current OS or buy and Xbox 360.
On this I suspect (but am not certain) that the lack of such cards reflects some last minute disagreements over setting the digital rights management standard that HDTV content companies are trying to create. Without the standard, you can't build the hardware.
On this I suspect (but am not certain) that the lack of such cards reflects some last minute disagreements over setting the digital rights management standard that HDTV content companies are trying to create. Without the standard, you can't build the hardware.
43mhz
doh!
teqniq said:
This kinda 'kicks' Boot Camp into touch for most Mac users.. running other systems within OSX in near native speeds.. I don't want to boot from one t'other.. bye bye Virtual PC (at last)
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
rocketman said:
Yep. The MPAA effectively held the FCC to ransom over the question of DRM for HDTV rather late in the game.
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/HDTV/
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2004/tc20041015_4243_tc024.htm
similar shenanigans have been going on over DRM on the next-generation of DVD
http://uk.gear.ign.com/articles/691/691408p1.html
Cid
Proper break this time
Dask said:
I doubt it's out of any love for the consumer - this is a great busniess move for both apple and microsoft. I mean its always been possible to run windows on a mac via virtual PC. By making it a native feature it means Microsoft can cash in on the Mac boom and Gates/Jobs can, as it were, call a truce... Macs experience a jump in sales as windows users switch for the dual format, looks and simplicity, microsoft gets money from the extra licences (and I presume apple gets a share), everybody wins. Except the PC manaufacturers, who are buy and large shite anyway... Custom PCs are unliklely to suffer as they're a fairly narrow market anyway (and I doubt mac will be opeining up their insides any time soon).
I wouldn't buy any shares in Dell though...
Cid
Proper break this time
editor said:
Apple prices have already started dipping their fingers into the cheap PC market with the mac mini range. At the moment the new Intel chip ones start at £449 (inc VAT), which isn't in the same price bracket as, say, Dell's low end range. But those prices will fall, and the mac is certainly the more desirable machine - compact, reliable etc.
editor
hiraethified
Here's an interesting article which asks, "Does Boot Camp Complete the Windows Monopoly?"
http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=5961
http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=5961
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
There has always been the cohoice with windows. You buy a new PC, you can install linux on it if you want. You still have to purchase windows (unless you build your own)
With a mac, you still have to buy OSX every time, but now they're offering the choice that wintel machines have always had.
With a mac, you still have to buy OSX every time, but now they're offering the choice that wintel machines have always had.
editor
hiraethified
I've always had the choice to use a Mac, a PC or anything else and that's been good enough for me, to be honest.jæd said:
And, of course, I could run Linux on a PC.
If Apple had let third party companies build their machines - like they did in the mid 90s with Umax - I wonder how much more popular the platform would be now.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
editor said:
Apple would be dead by now if they still allowed clones. The hardware is where they make their money. If I could buy a not-so-pretty but just as powerful mac for £300 less, I'd go for it in an instant - and that would be the end of Apple's profits. Besides, the reason macs are so easy to use and pain free is because the software and hardware are so closely tied. Without that close integration, OSX would be mmore prone to all the weird and wonderful wobbles of the windows world.
fuck me, what a masterful bit of alliteration there if I do say so myself
Structaural
in Chatsubo
fractionMan said:mtg online
(I had to look that up) I think a mate used to play something like that with snail mail...
editor said:
I know.
But I can't see you guys (or for that matter, this discussion) finding much in the way of common ground, it's already too polarised.
Besides, now that jaed has been shorn of his traditional enemy, tom k&e, whither would he turn?
Ultimately, I think Boot Camp is an interesting move by Apple. I'm sure they have some strategy in mind, but I personally can't see exactly what that strategy would be. I can kind of seeing the idea of attempting to appeal to people who may be loathe to make the switch, but I'm not sure whether it will be a successful device to ease the transition or not.
Time will tell.
For now, despite all of Apple's insistances that the Core Duos are "much quicker" than the G5s, I'm still left wishing there was a current desktop Mac with a 64 bit proc available, because I'd think about buying it.
But there isn't, so I'll likely replace my PC with another PC.
editor
hiraethified
I was involved with a web design company that did the adverts for the Umax Macs and we had a couple in the office.Crispy said:
I can still remember the daft soundtrack they put to the advert too!
I was actually getting quite tempted and starting imagining awesome Sony/Apple tie-ins, but sadly it was not to be.
Seeing how Sony souped up Palm's handhelds with their highly innovative Clie range gives an indicator of What Might Have Been
Structaural
in Chatsubo
editor
hiraethified
It seems an odd way to go about it: here, pay for an expensive machine that already costs more than a comparable PC, and then pay for an expensive XP licence on top of that, mess about installing it and then faff about rebooting into different operating systems all the time.Iam said:
Don't get me wrong. If I was a Machead, I would deffo install Boot Camp to get access to XP-only programs, but I can't see ordinary punters getting too excited about it.
If my machine could run Mac OSX, I'd probably give it a go (if it was free) just because I could, but I really couldn't see me messing about with two OS for my everyday work...
I wonder how doable it is now...? Interestingly, last year I saw one of the Viaos with a builtin camera in the screen bezel. I was wondering then why Apple didn't copy iy...Similar threads
