Can we load Windows directly on the IntelMac

Why ask now? The Intel-based Macintosh computers are only a few hours old, and nobody has one in their possession yet -- no one will until February (or 1 - 3 days in case of the iMac).

I would assume the answer would be "yes," but anyone who says one way or the other before February is simply speculating.
 
Basically what's also interesting to consider: "why not?". Apple hardware with preinstalled macosx that can run MS Windows software would be perfect for switchers. It's not like apple would loose any market share. They would sell the hardware AND the software. And it would make the whole thing less risky for switchers who have no clue what macosx is like. And for now there are not so many dual core laptops available. Some ppl might even switch to mac only because of the hardware and knowing they can use their 'good old' XP..
Of course, it's only speculation but I would also rather say "yes, windows should boot on Intel Macs".
 
I think it'll be possible, but unsupported and unreliable. I'm sure there'll be some people out there who figure it out - people will do anything.
 
Zammy-Sam said:
Basically what's also interesting to consider: "why not?". Apple hardware with preinstalled macosx that can run MS Windows software would be perfect for switchers. It's not like apple would loose any market share. They would sell the hardware AND the software. And it would make the whole thing less risky for switchers who have no clue what macosx is like. And for now there are not so many dual core laptops available. Some ppl might even switch to mac only because of the hardware and knowing they can use their 'good old' XP..
Of course, it's only speculation but I would also rather say "yes, windows should boot on Intel Macs".
Click to expand...

because people may end up not switching at all. many people don't like macs simply because it's different. if they can get windows on there then great! why bother using macos?
 
My guess is Apple would not make it easy for users to put some version of windows on a Intel Mac. In the end Apple would lose. Sure, some people with strong tech knowledge will figure it out. For Apple to make it easy to do it would be suicide for Mac OSX. Lets face it, OSX is at the heart of the Apple's success!!!
 
Workwise, being able to run Windows would be a major reason for buying a MacBook <shudder>. I never liked Virtual PC but i am forced to use Windows for a bunch of work related tasks which currently means i am running 4 machines (2 laptops, 2 desktops). I would hope that Apple would make this simple rather than complex, they are after all primarily a Hardware company, so they shouldn't find it too threatening.

And powermac, i disagree, i don't think OS X is anything like the heart of Apple's success (though i love it dearly), i would say the iPod had a much better shot at that title recently.
 
I think the iPod for money value, certainly has increased Apple's bottom line. People are buying new Macs, new users to Mac because of the OS. Whether or not they love the iPod and decided why not buy a Mac, or many have reported they switched because of destine for XP.
As I am sure I don't have to tell you. Until OSX, reviewers and critics destroyed Apple.
Although Ora, I agree with your point about the iPod. I still believe OSX has driven Apple's success in notoriety and catching the public's attention.
 
Quite possibly, what i meant is that Apple derive their profit from the hardware not the software (despite the many $100 point upgrades to OS X). If people buy an Intel Mac, i doubt it will be just to ditch OS X and go Windows (or if so just a very small amount, as most of the pro-PC camp who wouldn't otherwise switch wouldn't go for the Apple kit). On the other hand, letting you dual boot OS X and windows would remove a barrier to switchers who still need some Windows only applications.

On being a Hardware company, that was something i cam across when researching my MSc thesis. As a modern example, Apple derive very little profit from iTMS, they make the money from the iPods. On the other hand, I am certain iTMS drives the purchase of iPods, or at least the overall software integration of the iPod drives iPod purchasing.
 
Lt Major Burns said:
because people may end up not switching at all. many people don't like macs simply because it's different. if they can get windows on there then great! why bother using macos?
Click to expand...
Well, now macs are not so much 'different' at all. Infact there is nothing mac-specific in the current MacBook, right? And sure, some windows users gonna rip off macosx from their MacBook disk and use windows. But does that harm apple? They sold their hardware AND software to those ppl who would never have thought of using macs, because after their windows installation finalized what is apple on the MacBook beside the logo? Best thing that could happen, if you ask me.
 
powermac said:
My guess is Apple would not make it easy for users to put some version of windows on a Intel Mac. In the end Apple would lose. Sure, some people with strong tech knowledge will figure it out. For Apple to make it easy to do it would be suicide for Mac OSX. Lets face it, OSX is at the heart of the Apple's success!!!
Click to expand...
Well, I doubt any Mac user is going to buy a Mac, install Windows, and say "Zowee, this is great! I don't need that thar oh-ess-ex no more!" I mean, c'mon... :) On the other hand, Windows users might well buy a Mac just to use Windows, and then start using OS X more and more because they finally can. And even if they don't keep using OS X, it'd still be good for Apple, because it would increase their market share (most market share numbers are based on systems sold with an OS preinstalled).

I think Apple can and should operate with the belief that they have the best product out there. That means that allowing Windows to be installed isn't a huge threat.

I think it could really work in Apple's favor, even if they only allow Windows to work for the first generation or two of their Intel machines (killing support later would discourage styoopid developers from saying "well, if you can just install Windows on Macs, then we don't need to make Mac software at all"). It'd make Apple's machines soooo much more attractive to switchers, and could even help non-switchers slowly become switchers.

In any case, we'll probably know in a few days.
 
Either way, it won't hurt Apple that much in my opinion because they aren't shipping a copy of Windows with these Intel Macs....they only come with OS X preinstalled and you would have to fit the bill and purchase a copy of Windows for that Intel Mac.

Even if they try to install a pirated copy, they would be hindered by the MS Genuine Advantage ActiveX control for any updates, not allowing them access to other Windows tools that they might have used on a PC that came with Windows preinstalled or with a legit copy of Windows. While there is a workaround to this, the usual user isn't going to know how to apply this workaround...too much trouble and too geeky for the average user if you ask me.

So all in all, whether it's Windows or OS X, it's still a hardware and software win for Apple. :)
 
I certainly respect Apple's decision not to purposely sabotage one's ability to install another OS. I am just brainstorming here!!

For argument sake, lets say loading Vista on a Mac-intel is easy. I can see this situation playing its self out. Assuming it is a perfect world:rolleyes:

People are not going to get two versions of the same software (whether legal or illegally). Lets say, I have a duo-boot machine, and get M$ Office. Why wouldn't I get it for the Vista side, photoshop and like? Lets be real here, apps like Office, photoshop, etc are easily gotten illegally, and much easier to get for Windows. If I have my hard core apps on the Vista side, what makes one use OSX? My iTunes library and iPod are set to use Windows!

Certainly not going to use OSX just for iLife, and as time goes on, I can see people using OSX less and less. I don't think it is Apple's doom. But I enjoy Mac software as well as hardware.

I remember reading an article years ago in a computer magazine. It predicted that some day, one Operating System would be all you need to run every app. I wonder if we are getting closer to that prediction? :confused:
Just some stupid thoughts!
 
Again, this is assuming that the pirated software that was acquired isn't riddledwith backdoors, trojans, and other types of malware. It's too risky for the regular user to even attempt especially nowadays with Windows, even Windows Vista depending on how secure that OS will be. Getting the software this way will only degrade the Windows experience on Intel Macs as much as it does on the other PCs that usually run Windows.

Consider that right now, even with whatever malware there might be for OS X, it still tends to be more secure than Windows. Consider also that right now, a few more WMF vulns have been discovered on Windows even after the patch has been released and installed. All these things are what will keep flocking users to the Mac. Not saying that Mac OS X is impenetrable, but Linux has been around much longer, has a lot more vulns around that we never hear of in the mainsteam tech press due to it's age and length of use, and STILL tends to be less prone to infections and take-downs than Windows does. That says a lot about the UNIX design that makes up Linux, OS X, and a lot of other POSIX-compatible open source UNIX operating systems out there.
 
Overall, I am excited about the transition. Although I will not be part of it for awhile since my PB was just purchased and I am pleased with it. I used to be one of those people who said, "Apple will switch to Intel processors." If I learned anything, it is never say never :)
 
What would be better would be OS X's capability to run XP Pro in a VirtPC-style environmnet...that way when I want to get things done I can use OS X...but to reset an Active Directory user account or two or use Visio when the boss emails me yet another network plan I can pop over to XP WITHOUT have to reboot.
Also, under the DoD's licensing plan with Microsoft, we are allowed ONE Microsoft XP Pro license for TWO machines...a laptop and a desktop, and the license also comes complete with Office 2003 for XP Pro.
The only condition is that we can't use BOTH machines at the same time.
Hmm....if OS X on a MacBook can run XP Pro, then I can ditch the desktop.
But it would probably take the whole 2GB of possible RAM to do it somewhat decent (time to buy more RAM!).
 
Because of EFI on the Intel Macs, Windows XP is a no-go, but Vista will be since it will have support for EFI.
 
nixgeek said:
Because of EFI on the Intel Macs, Windows XP is a no-go, but Vista will be since it will have support for EFI.
Click to expand...
In that case, it will be at least a year after Vista comes out for me to even try that.
Because we all know to NEVER buy a Microsoft operating system until they've released the first Service Pack for it...and even then wait for any "gotcha" bug reports from the Service Pack.
Well, that's how we operate in the government sector anyway. Feel safer? :)
 
nixgeek said:
Because of EFI on the Intel Macs, Windows XP is a no-go, but Vista will be since it will have support for EFI.
Click to expand...

That's a bit misleading since we don't know yet whether they have BIOS support as well, we'll have to wait and see.

Hopefully since the architecture of the chip is no longer an issue, we'll see a port of WINE or maybe a release of a program from someone else that runs the Windows program under OS X without the need for Windows itself. It wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft made VPC (possibly renamed) into that kind of APP in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top