# PC & MAC become one



## zoranb (May 30, 2005)

When will this ever happen? What do i mean huh? Well i have 2 examples

1. lets say i want to purchase an app, i go buy the cd and i runs effectivelly on both windows and mac os no worries if its pc or mac. unicodeCDprogramming or something!

2. lets say i want to run both systems on one machine. Dual boot, one for windows and other for OSx

Any rumours on that stuff? im tired of needing to have 2 machines. Mainly for PPro that Adobe stopped recently!!
Cheers guys!


----------



## Shookster (May 30, 2005)

Can't you just use a Windows emulator on your Mac?


----------



## HomunQlus (May 30, 2005)

1. There are several applications out there that run well on both systems. These CDs are called Hybrid CDs, and contain the applications for both. If you put such a CD into a Windows system, you only see the Windows files, while on Mac you only see the files for Mac. Propellerhead Reason is one of those applications.

2. Dual boot with Mac and Windows as systems will never be possible. Mac OS X can only run on PowerPC hardware while Windows can only run on Intel hardware. The only way you can have Windows on a Mac machine is Virtual PC. There is a way to have Mac OS X on a PC, but it's incredibly slow and there's not much use in it. The software is called PearPC and it's free.


----------



## JetwingX (May 30, 2005)

chances are very slim that apple and Microsoft will ever become one or be duel bootible. Microsoft needs apple to stay alive so it doesn't become a monopoly and there will always be a difference in apps for one and apps in another.

your best bet (if you are sick and tired of having to go back and forth between 2 comps) is to get something like a KVM switch  from iogear and just share a keyboard, mouse and monitor between the two computers and set them to share files.


----------



## Chazam (May 30, 2005)

Is that honestly true Jetwing, about MS needing Apple to stay alive?

I understand why. 
MS need a competitor who's software DOESN'T run on MS compatable hardware. That lets MS keep it's share of the X86 PC market's and he can still say "I do have a competitor, who i work with, Apple"

This must be why MS hates Linux so much and makes programs for OSX.

Anyway, if it were possible to dual boot OSX and Windows why would software companies port thier software to different OS's?


----------



## HomunQlus (May 30, 2005)

OS X is a Unix as well, and Unix is, per se, free software. ;-)


----------



## Mikuro (May 30, 2005)

Back in the old days, you _could_ get dual-booting Macs  via PC compatibility cards packing Pentiums.

I've heard a bit from both Intel and IBM about some crazy new chip architecture that would let you run two OSes at the same time. Currently, though, I think that just means two of the same type of OS. That is to say, you could run PPC Linux and OS X at the same time, or two x86 OSes, but not mix and match. But it's possible some day we'll see a chip with the ability to natively execute both PPC and x86 instructions, perhaps even simultaneously. Not _likely_ (at least not anytime soon), but possible (I think).

I think the more practical answer is for some PC company to make a knock-off of the Mac mini that doesn't totally suck. Stick it under the real thing, add a KVM switch, and there ya go.


----------



## fryke (May 30, 2005)

UNIX is not free software, HomunQlus. Quite the opposite. There's even a big case going on about it.


----------



## HomunQlus (May 30, 2005)

I know. UNIX (c) is not free, but variations, that consider themselves a Unix (-> FreeBSD) are free.


----------



## Viro (May 30, 2005)

HomunQlus said:
			
		

> I know. UNIX (c) is not free, but variations, that consider themselves a Unix (-> FreeBSD) are free.



A Unix (as opposed to UNIX) does not have to be free. OS X that considers itself to be a sort of Unix is by no means free.


----------



## HomunQlus (May 30, 2005)

That's right... Well, I guess you know what I meant in the first place.


----------



## Viro (May 30, 2005)

Yeah, you should say Linux and some BSD *nixes .


----------



## MacFreak (May 30, 2005)

I remeber there was a new company called Nutek. It designed hardware to run Mac and PC in one. They gave me one prototype to test it. It work great but some didnt work. It was in 1992 something. Nutek was sued by Apple. Apple forced Nutek to stop product. I remember that we can use both pc and mac applications on Nutek its look odd but awesome. Its too bad its gone.


----------



## JetwingX (May 30, 2005)

(sorry to go back in the conversation)


			
				Chazam said:
			
		

> Is that honestly true Jetwing, about MS needing Apple to stay alive?



In the mid/late 90's, Apple was on the edge of death but MS made a deal with apple and gave them money to stay in business. I think one of the terms in the contract was that IE had to be the default browser under OS 9


----------



## fjdouse (May 30, 2005)

MacFreak said:
			
		

> I remeber there was a new company called Nutek. It designed hardware to run Mac and PC in one. They gave me one prototype to test it. It work great but some didnt work. It was in 1992 something. Nutek was sued by Apple. Apple forced Nutek to stop product. I remember that we can use both pc and mac applications on Nutek its look odd but awesome. Its too bad its gone.



There have been some interesting machines, especially around that time, I remember a PC which was also a Sega Megadrive (Genesis in the USA) which was cool.  

As for PC and Mac in one, it's not an outlandish idea, many years ago Acorn (UK) had the RISC PC which ran a lighting fast RISC OS and could run Windows too thanks to an optional on-board PC CPU, that was really neat.

Hell, my old Atari 520ST had a 286 daughterboard and Windows 3.0 if I recall and Sun produced SunPCi which gave Sun workstations the ability to run Windows.

I think it COULD be a good idea to make a future Mac with the option of running PC software using a real CPU especially as the 64bit thing takes off, and using some software on the Windows side, it could be a seemless thing done really well.  I know the arguement about it being a bad idea because people won't make Mac software anymore, but I don't really buy into that.  I think it could be a good thing, I'm not confident about VirtualPC ever being a real alternative, especially now Microsoft has it's grubby hands on it and the idea of buying some butt-ugly buzzing box to sit beside an aesthetically pleasing Mac is horrific to me.


----------



## Shookster (May 30, 2005)

JetwingX said:
			
		

> (sorry to go back in the conversation)
> 
> 
> In the mid/late 90's, Apple was on the edge of death but MS made a deal with apple and gave them money to stay in business. I think one of the terms in the contract was that IE had to be the default browser under OS 9



I heard that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are actually pretty friendly towards one another so that's not surprising. Although iPods are frowned upon at Microsoft HQ so some employees bought black headphones for them so that they were less recognisable.

I think it's likely that MS will develop a portable media player in the near future and will probably use the Xbox 360 as leverage in the market (Xbox 360 can interface with other devices).


----------



## Lycander (May 31, 2005)

Chazam said:
			
		

> Anyway, if it were possible to dual boot OSX and Windows why would software companies port thier software to different OS's?


Because there are people, armed with cash, who refuse to use Windows.


----------



## markceltic (May 31, 2005)

Okay but this idea of a machine with both OS's is for whom really?Developers, true that is who is probably the majority here. So anyone like to take a stab at what such a beast would cost? Who is going to build it? Talk about your niche market shheeesh!


----------



## Viro (Jun 1, 2005)

It would be far cheaper and simpler to just buy a Mac and a PC. You could spend under $1000 and get both to test things out.


----------



## Krevinek (Jun 2, 2005)

JetwingX said:
			
		

> (sorry to go back in the conversation)
> 
> 
> In the mid/late 90's, Apple was on the edge of death but MS made a deal with apple and gave them money to stay in business. I think one of the terms in the contract was that IE had to be the default browser under OS 9



Well, Apple was bleeding red ink, yes... but still had right around 4 *billion* in liquid assets. This particular deal was 150 million dollars of non-voter stock being purchased by MS, which Apple could have survived without. I much rather think that Steve Jobs (this arrangement was after Amelio was canned, so after 1996) wanted to bargain with MS in order to get MS vested in the platform to make it more stable (in terms of software support) in exchange for some preferential treatment towards MS. This is one of the myths that seems to propogate even under Jobs' RDF. They could have survived without the MS investment.

But.... Why fix your red ink problems with your own money when you can do it on someone else's dime?


----------



## zoranb (Jun 7, 2005)

Shookster said:
			
		

> Can't you just use a Windows emulator on your Mac?


do u know an emulator that would run AdobePremierePro on the mac?


----------



## zoranb (Jun 7, 2005)

whats all this about the new Mac working with Intel based cpus. Does that mean dual boot?


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 7, 2005)

No. Dual Boot won't be possible. It also is not possible to buy a standard PC and buy OS X and install it. You still have to buy an Apple branded machine. On this machine you cannot install Windows for Dual Boot.


----------



## Viro (Jun 7, 2005)

You could always dual boot Linux. I did it for a bit with my Powerbook and iBook.


----------



## zoranb (Jun 7, 2005)

what would i do with linux? im a graphic designer!


----------



## Viro (Jun 7, 2005)

There's always Gimp .


----------



## zoranb (Jun 7, 2005)

Gimp??


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 7, 2005)

Gimp! The Graphical Image Manipulation Project.

It's completely free, and has comparable power to Photoshop.

www.gimp.org


----------



## Randman (Jun 7, 2005)

This thread is silly.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 7, 2005)

Then back to topic.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 7, 2005)

ACtually, regarding the Windows installation on the Intel Macs, it was said that it might be possible to do so, but wouldn't gain any support from Apple (of course!).

Check here at the bottom:
http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch,+aligns+with+Intel/2100-7341_3-5733756.html?tag=nefd.top


----------



## fryke (Jun 7, 2005)

I simply hope that Microsoft will release a version of Virtual PC that uses the intel processor as VPC does under Windows (there _is_ Virtual PC for Windows). Those virtual machines are certainly much faster than emulating X86 code on a PPC.

But what I'd _really_ love: If MS would turn VirtualPC into some sort of 'Classic environment'. But I guess it's not Microsoft's goal to make Mac OS X the successor of Windows.


----------



## chadwick (Jun 7, 2005)

If Microsoft doesn't move VirtualPC to be a better product, there is a reasonable chance that VMWare might move theirs. Seeing as how they already support Linux as a host OS for their software, they've already taken the hardest step in porting. Getting it to run on a x86 based Mac OS X would likely not be a difficult task. The hardest part would be convincing them there is enough market to do it, but I be there is more of a market for VMWare Workstation on Mac OS X than there is on regular Windows...


----------



## Pengu (Jun 7, 2005)

Why does MS need to do it? Wine is already there on the linux side. Apple can/should grab the code, optimise the hell out of it (they still have only specific hardware) and give people a built in Win32 layer..


----------



## zoranb (Jun 8, 2005)

Guys i just read some news from the url at nixgeek post earlier, check this out:

"...After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said..."


well i translate this as get a MAC and u can run both OS's (or vice versa), but u just wont get support of Windows from Apple. Seems like a dual boot to me u guys! Heaven is ahead u guys, early 2006.


----------



## Shookster (Jun 8, 2005)

I reckon someone somewhere will manage to get Mac OS running on a PC.


----------



## zoranb (Jun 8, 2005)

even if so, ill never prefer that option (OSX running on a PC). when u get a MAC u have a way mutch better box and hardware than any pc around. u get more quality.

of course the choice between the two depends on which platform your main tasks are to be acomplished. well im a graphic designer so i prefer the mac. the pc ill need it mostly to do my premierePro work.
anyhow the news are great!!


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 8, 2005)

That's the end guys, that's not heaven. People will buy an high-end Intel-based Mac, then install Windows on it - because they like Windows better and want to use it on some kick-ass hardware. What about OS X? Of course, dual boot is possible, but then OS X will always be the second system, that's only in the boot loader and not used often.

The Intel thing was a VERY BAD move.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 8, 2005)

because windows has always been a far superior OS to MacOS X

tool


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 8, 2005)

sorry, that was abit harsh, but seriously, where's the logic in a PC fanboy admitting defeat and shelling out on apple hardware to install windows.  i have no desire to run either an ugly, temperamental pc or the shoddy OS's you're forced to run with it.


----------



## zoranb (Jun 8, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> because windows has always been a far superior OS to MacOS X
> 
> tool



never was never will be


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 8, 2005)

zoranb said:
			
		

> never was never will be



Exactly. Windows is some sort of try for an OS. But it isn't.


----------



## zoranb (Jun 8, 2005)

actually the more i work on MACOSx the more i c the similarities on the outside and philosophy with Windows so i guess not only WinXp is a copy, but its a bad one too since i has so many defects (virus threats, unstability, unsecure etc.) compared to MACOSx.


----------

