I concur. What’s not realized by those who say Apple should get out of hardware is that the lion’s portion of Windows sales are to OEMs. Unless Apple gets some nice contracts, not mandatorily tying their software to particular hardware would be a terrible idea.
Well, that’s not exactly true: the XP Luna UI will be available on Vista. The problem is that MS has pretty much thrown out, or put on the back burner, everything cool about Vista except the new UI. Eh. I’m glad to have gotten out of the Windows world.
I’d have to ignore that Cinebench testing entirely without knowing exactly how they tested.
If Cinebench is an XP app, then it’s running natively on the XP, and emulated via Rosetta on OS X. Of course it will come up slower that way.
If there’s an XP version and an OS X version, then you’re comparing apples to bananas as the different versions are going to be coded differently with respect to how they talk to the OS, regardless of the core engine.
I’m not aware of any executables that have been written that are same-file-runs-on-either-OS. From Cinebench’s website, I see that they produce 32- and 64-bit Windows versions and “universal binary” for OS X on PowerPC or Intel processors.
I’m pretty sure Cinebench is now a Univesal Binary, and the MacOS and Win versions tend to be highly optimized for each operating system. My guess is the issue stems to some degree from Apple not doing enough to optimize it’s own implementation of the OpenGL video architecture. It’s a common complaint I’ve seen among gamers in the past.
Right after Apple made the announcement about moving to Intel processors there was speculation about whether they would prevent people from installing Windows on their machines. Steve Jobs and co. were close-mouthed, as usual. Schemes like having encryption, an extra chip on the board, or Microsoft-style validation were discussed. As has become typical with them, Apple chose a completely different solution to the problem of unauthorized use of their systems: they authorized it.
I think this was the right choice. To outsmart crackers, you have to constantly be one step ahead, and as fast as you patch the holes they’ll find another weakness to exploit. So instead of becoming some digital-rights boogeyman like Microsoft or the RIAA, they’re not going to worry about trying to prevent the inevitable. Apple realized that the only way to win the protection/crack game is not to play. Instead of playing catch-up with people who would make it their hobby to get past any kind of protection Apple put in to prevent Windows from being used on their computers, Apple decided that they’d subvert things by officially endorsing a dual-boot machine and using that capability to convert people who might not consider buying a Mac.
Now, the speculation is turning toward what Apple’s next step might be. DaringFireball, a Mac-issues blog, thinks that Windows might become the new Classic. Judging from the admittedly scanty evidence out there, I think that he may very well be right. In other words, Apple may support Windows with an emulated environment similar to the way they supported their pre-OS X operating system. Like a lot of Mac users, I found that OS X preempted most of the things I used to do in OS 9. The only time I boot into 9 any more is to run a couple of really old games that don’t work quite right in Classic emulation. I could see OS X doing the same for Windows.
And OS X will be there, pretty and useable, continually making improvements, while Vista is still at least a year off. If Apple does win some converts, I’d be willing to bet that they’ll keep them unless Vista is vastly better than I think it will be. At that point OS X will have somewhat of the same inertia that Windows has had working for it, and what is, in my admittedly biased opinion, some superior functionality and usability over Windows XP.
Actually, I think you’re mistaken – Apple’s official position since the move to Intel was first announced has always been “we won’t actively prevent people from installing Windows on our Macs.” It’s always been the installation of MacOS X on generic beige PCs that gets Cupertino in an uproar.
Seconded on DF; his analysis is usually dead on, IMO.
On the other end of the spectrum, you’ve got Robert X. Cringely going around insisting that Apple will soon be selling boxed copies of MacOS X for installation on generic PCs, a prediction that I put right down there with Michael Jackson being appointed UNICEF’s next spokeswhatever.
People working in Apple Stores are reporting that folks are bringing back brand-new, just-purchased PCs to exchange them for Intel-based Macs. They’re calling them “PC-returning switchers” or PCRs.
People who want to run the MacOS and don’t give a shit about Windows will buy: Macs, same as always.
People who want to run Windows and don’t give a shit about MacOS will buy: PCs, same as always.
People who use primarily one but would like occasional access to the other, regardless of which one would be their main platform will buy: Macs, and many of these folks would have bought PCs if Macs could not run Windows.
Percent of people owning Macs: goes up
Percent of people using OS X at least on occasion: goes up
Apple has never made any effort to keep people from installing other operating systems on the hardware they make. There’s no reason to start now, since it doesn’t in any way affect their revenue stream. Regardless of whether someone who buys a Mac uses Mac OS on it, Apple has sold a copy.
I think the biggest danger to Apple is
Percent of applications developers who port to the Mac: goes down
After all, why spend development dollars porting something to the Mac if your customers with Macs can just buy Windows to run it? This effect may eventually shrink the market for Mac programs even more, leaving Apple beholden to Microsoft, and reducing the benefits of OS X. If OS X ends up being the prettiest and easiest to use compatibility layer ever, many would be switchers will switch right back.
Doubtful, because Apple isn’t bundling Windows with their machines, and likely wouldn’t—if you’re motivated enough to want to use Windows on a Mac, you’ve probably already got a copy of Windows. No Mac software developer can assume an Intel Mac user has access to Windows, and telling your customers to go ahead and lay out another couple of hundred dollars for a second operating system isn’t going to get you very far.
If Apple started bundling Windows, or even a seamless Windows compatibility mode, with the Mac, then I might start worrying about their developer commitment. Until then, nah.
I remember that no definitive statements were made one way or the other. With the recent explosion of commentary on Boot Camp I can’t seem to find any articles on the subject though, so I’m willing to admit that my memory could be faulty.
Quoted for truth, especially given – at the current time – that only the newest Intel-based Macs can run windows at all (either via Boot Camp or Virtualization). Going Windows-only is a sure-fire way to kiss off the ~23 million folks still running on a Motorola/PowerPC processor of some kind.
You might have software companies that were kinda-sorta considering developing Mac-native versions of their software resort to a “Oh, just boot with Windows” excuse, but those folks probably weren’t planning to produce Mac-native versions of their stuff, and their continued absence merely means the status quo is maintained.
This appears to be a boon to Microsoft, at any rate - they don’t manufacture hardware (well, the XBox, but that’s a whole different kettle of fish), so they don’t have a stake in that, and Apple have effectively just opened a whole new market to them.
After using OSX, I would never go back to Windows. I would say this is a very common occurrence. I don’t know many people who would actually dual boot with Windows on their current macs if they were given the choice.
However, if you are talking about people buying macs, then only using Windows on them, then I see no loss to Apple, they still sold their hardware.
I think it’s a good idea. I used to hate Macs with a passion (as many people do after being forced to use <OSX machines), but after being given a little taste I have become a solid Jobs supporter.
Give them a year or two. If Boot Camp increases Apple’s sales significantly, then expect to see pre-made dual-boot systems coming out in the not-too-distant future.
Yes, it is also true that: Percent of people using Windows at least on occasion: goes up
More to the point from Microsoft’s viewpoint (i.e., Microsoft, unlike Apple, does not have a need for a higher percentage of users in order to encourage developers): Number of people purchasing a licensed copy of Windows: goes up
(Yes, there will be some illicit deployments, but no more so than on standard PC equipment, I would imagine).
Because of the comparative sizes of the user-base, if a decent chunk of Windows users get Intel Macs and use MacOS X some of the time, while a decent chunk of Mac users get them and use XP some of the time, it’s a drop added to the ocean of Windows users but a nice extra dozen gallons of fresh water added to the pool of MacOS users. To developers, it means more people use OS X than before (even if not all the time), so they have more incentive to compile their source code for both operating systems.
Also, Apple is (apparently/probably) resurrecting the “Yellow Box for Windows”, a set of programming APIs and a one-time install onto Windows PCs which means if you develop your app in that framework it runs on both platforms with very little muss and fuss.
Apple would appear to benefit the most (at least some of those Windows users who would like to dual-boot MacOS some of the time will end up booting into Windows only on occasion; far fewer people who would have ever bought a Mac while really wishing to spend most of their time in Windows). Microsoft could lose some userbase but small potatoes as a percent of the userbase they have, and as long as more people are actually buying XP they don’t need to care if slightly fewer people are using it as their main OS.
Only Dell (and other PC hardware companies) are in a position where this is negative with no offsetting positives, and Boot Camp probably isn’t their biggest headache right at the moment.
Another couple interesting ideas we’ve been bouncing around at work…
since Macs are consistent, hardware-wise, it would seem logical that windows running on a Mac would be more stable than on a homebuilt pc, or pc upgraded with third-party hardware, wouldn’t it be ironic that the best (in the case of software stability) windows pc turns out to be a Mac
second;
it wouldn’t surprise me if one or more of the more…“beleaguered” pc manufacturers would go out of business due to the Mac running windows better than their machines, if i had to guess, i’d put eMachines, Gateway, and Compaq on the “death watch” list (yes, yes, i know, Compaq is actually owned by HP…)
Mac Tech, it is clear you prefer to use the mac, but do you also prefer a world where there is no choice, and that mac is the only computer all of us are forced to use, and that Apple is the only computer company on earth, regardless of personal preference?
no i don’t wish that, choice is good, all i was saying is that it wouldn’t surprise me if BootCamp equipped Macs running windows (BootCamp will be an integral part of 10.5 “Lepoard”) cut in on the marketshare of some of the more troubled pc makers
the main problem i have with windows and microsoft in general is their anticompetitive and strongarm tactics
