Windows on Macs: The Average-Joe magnet

My personal opinion is that supporting Windows on the Mac will kill OS X. Here's why.

Consider that:
1) Every software company wants to maximize profits.
2) Every Mactel can run Windows and OS X.
3) Every PC can run Windows and not OS X.

Assuming the above statements are true, why on earth would any software company develop for OS X any more? By developing exclusively for Windows, you reach everybody: Mactel users and Wintel users. Developing for OS X will lock you in; cutting your potential market by a very significant amount since only the Mactels and the old Mac users will be able to run your software. Given the size of the Mactels, is this really a good position to take? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to just axe OS X development and focus completely on Windows?

Aside from the 'feel good' factor, there is very little reason for a software company to support OS X if the new Mactels can run Windows. As such I would be quite surprised if they allowed you to run Windows on the new Mactels. It doesn't make sense to me. But then again, Apple's actions of late have made very little sense to me. :)
 
Not EVERY intel Mac can run Windows. Only those whose users buy Windows licenses. And until Apple releases the first intel Mac in June 2006, we even don't know whether Macs can boot into Windows. (Although some kind of virtual machine software will probably appear sooner or later.)
 
I agree with you Viro. I really don't see why Apple would allow Macs to support running Windows, even if it is x86 based. The Mac would die. It wouldn't be an Apple anymore.

I do understand Job's action to take on Intel's processors, however. He is trying to provide the best possible computing environment for his faithful crowd. Intel will make the Mac better and faster than ever; that is if they choose not to support (satan).
 
OK, I'll bite..

These points you raise are part of the hidden implications I've been talking about in various threads, which most seem oblivious to. How long will it be before you see:

Mac Compatible*
*Requires Microsoft Windows

on products, it seems far fetched but it will come if we're not careful. I don't think that many who are embracing this change, blindly, I'd add, have thought or even understand the implications. Someone said to me the other day, Apple's days of making their own hardware platforms is over, the dream is dead, they are becoming a PC maker. I agree, if the PC version of Windows is going to run native on an Intel Mac, it's ONLY possible if an Intel Mac is actually a PC, a point lost on many here. There is ONLY ONE dominant OS on PCs, Windows. I think many Mac users, have too much faith or are not objective about OS X, I like it, I think it's the best UNIX OS on the planet, but I know a few people who simply didn't like it. I've also read a lot of comments from people in the PC world who are litterally gagging for Apple branded PCs to run Windows on, they can't wait. There are Linux users also in the same camp.

I've emotionally worn myself out on this issue, personally I find the idea of a Windows-compatible Mac, which would HAVE to be a PC, to be deeply tragic. Beyond the hype are signs of Apple holding their hands up and saying "yep, we're beat", further implications of course mean that hardware development will drop dramatically, except designing PCs and in time, even OS X will start to slow. If Microsoft feel challenged, they can turn off their Mac BU with a click of the fingers, if Adobe with it's recently aquired Macromedia, start to get cold feet about supporting a tiny "PC" niche, that's game over for OS X.

If you're a big developer looking to deploy into the PC market, Apple being one of many PC makers, Windows and maybe in time Linux will be preferred over OS X with a tiny user base, limited to Apple hardware. Of course, Apple could then sell it to all PC owners, then what? Why buy the hardware?

It's all a nasty, messy, complicated can of worms and by the comments I've read here, not many realise or care. Let's wait and see.

I am praying that the Intel Mac will NOT boot Windows (the software Satan) and will not be a fancy PC, but that would contradict the comments made by Apple.
 
@fryke
A Windows license isn't a very costly investment. In fact it is much cheaper than Virtual PC, and as an added benefit it will provide native Windows performance. For the price of Windows XP (or Longhorn or whatever they will call it then) you have a fast Windows machine and an OS X machine.

How many people will buy Windows just to play the games? How many will buy Windows once they see that some software that they need isn't available on OS X or doesn't run as well on OS X as it does on Windows? If you make it an option, you can bet that people will jump at the opportunity to install Windows on the new Mactels.

As a software developer, would it be cost effective to develop for OS X knowing that if your target audience really wanted to run your application, they could just buy a Windows license? Compare the price of a Windows license to an app like Photoshop, 3DS Max, AutoCAD, Matlab, <insert your app here> and you'll see that the added cost of the Windows license isn't too much.
 
Viro said:
My personal opinion is that supporting Windows on the Mac will kill OS X. Here's why.

Consider that:
1) Every software company wants to maximize profits.
2) Every Mactel can run Windows and OS X.
3) Every PC can run Windows and not OS X.

Assuming the above statements are true, why on earth would any software company develop for OS X any more? By developing exclusively for Windows, you reach everybody: Mactel users and Wintel users.
Click to expand...

Mac OS X Software cannot run on Windows. This is because the operating systems are completely different in their foundation. X is a Unix variant, while well Windows is, uhm, well Windows.
 
That's missing the point. OS X can't run Windows but IF Intel Macs (PCs) CAN run Windows natively by dual booting, developers can say, "buy Windows, it's a necessary component to run our software".
 
As much as I am looking forward to the change, I can't help but have the same fear as fjdouse in this respect. I'm hoping that the worst-case-scenario that we ever see is what we've seen all along even with the PPC inside Macs, which is seeing apps ported over to the Mac after the PC version. Hopefully, we won't even see this situation at all either, since it seems as though developers are looking positively to this transition.

In all seriousness, it would be unintelligent to buy a Mac just for the design and slap Windows on it, especially since you would have to purchase a legal copy of Windows. And if you haven't noticed, Windows XP is even more expensive than Mac OS X. Yes, there will be those with pirated copies installing, but those don't count. Either way, Apple has sold a Mactel with a Mac OS X license and OS installed. If someone wanted Windows, they would buy something considerably less with Windows already installed and FULL hardware compatibility out of the box...for the most part :p (remember, we don't know what the final Mactels will look like on the inside, other than the Intel part).
 
nixgeek said:
it would be unintelligent to buy a Mac just for the design and slap Windows on it
Click to expand...

It would be unintelligent to believe that there are a huge number of people who wouldn't, take a look at the various forums where PC monkeys are salivating with anticipation for an Apple PC. I know many people myself who love the hardware designs but hate the OS with a passion, we're not very objective about our pet OS, we find it difficult that anyone would NOT like it, but it's true. I hated it at first, to be honest, it seemed counter intuitive, perhaps I was just too used to GNOME or KDE, I missed doing things the way I was used to - *that's* the point! It took a few days of persistence. Now imagine you're a switcher on the Intel Mac, you've already *GOT* XP, how many wouldn't install it? C'mon, be serious, people *ARE* going to install Windows, in *LARGE* numbers and a large percentage are going to use it as their main OS. XP isn't that expensive, especially the home edition, and yeah, we have to count those with dodgy copies too. Don't forget, Windows has a much longer shelf life than OS X, how many releases have come from Apple since XP?
 
Visitors to PC forums aren't the general PC using public :). Important point to note there.
 
Again, if you were a switcher, you wouldn't even bother to shoehorn Windows on your new Mac. If you were a switcher, you would be using the Mac OS and keep WIndows on your old PC (if you were to keep it). If you wanted Windows, you would get a PC which would probably be a little cheaper and not even bother with the Mac. It all boils down to common sense for the common computer user. Geeks like us might do it, although I personally don't see why. The thought of it reminds me when I tried to install QNX on my PC just to see it work. In the end, it didn't do anything for me and I got rid of it. Total waste of time. And yes, geeks like us MIGHT use a copy of Windows on it whether it was legal or not, but consider that you still purchased the hardware and software, so Apple doesn't lose anything at all...they still make a buck.

fjdouse, you mentioned how we might not be objective to our OS, but consider that you aren't thinking objectively about what a computer is to regular users. Regular users don't care about how technically superior the hardware is. They just want their computer to work for them, which means they will get a computer with Windows if they want Windows, or they will get an Intel Mac with the Mac OS...they won't even CARE that it's an Intel Mac if they want the Mac. They'll just care that they are using something that works for them and appeals to them, be it Windows or Mac OS X.
 
As for the geek factor.....

If they wanted to play around with the Mac OS, they could install either Basilisk II or use PearPC just for an idea of what it would be like. Sure it's not what we all experience on our Macs (or at least what I've experienced on OS X Macs since I'm still too poor to afford one :p) but it's enough to get their feet wet. This is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than shelling out the cash for the Mactel hardware, since some would most likely download the OS from a p2p site for their PearPC emulator.

I have used Basilisk II and am quite happy with it on my PC. I have also used Linux and it has become my main OS on the PC side. PearPC I haven't used but haven't felt the need to personally.

Yes, geeks will try to do it, but don't confuse the geeks with the n00bs. The latter just wants to get the job done with whatever works for them at the most affordable way possible.
 
No, I think you're wrong. Saying buyers of Intel Macs will keep their PCs is utter nonsense, I'll say it again, though I'm getting tired of repeating it, IF Apple make a Mac which can install and boot Windows natively, IT WILL BE A PC. A switcher wouldn't keep their old junk, they'd probably get rid of it, and you don't have to be a geek or OS nit to appreciate the hardware, even my father knows Apple make beautiful, classy hardware and he knows NOTHING about computers and doesn't even own one! Not everyone who will buy an Apple PC (branded as a Mac) will want the OS that comes with it, some will want just the hardware.

I'm just repeating myself now. :) I'm done.
 
IF Apple make a Mac which can install and boot Windows natively, IT WILL BE A PC.
Click to expand...
Which is not going to happen. It is simply not the case. Schiller just said they wouln'd spend any money on preventing it from happening. If it is going to reaquire even a moderate amount of (hardware/firmware) hacking it is not an issue. There is less thatn 0.1% of the market capable or willing to do such a thing (like installing a modchip), which would certainly void the warranty. We do not yet know what kind of specs the new Mac/x86 machines will have: what motherboard? What chipset? Moreover, what about the processor? Will it be a dual core processor (probably yes)? a 64 bit processor (probably yes)? dual processors i nthe Pro machines (probably yes)? Well, I don't know what the level of support for tha tis in windows. AFAIK the Home edition doesn't support all that yet. So all this fuss about windows booting natively is really premature, we don't know whether it will be possible, because we do not know what parts Apple will be using.
 
sigh... which is why I said IF.

1. The information we have in the dev kits is they are generic Intel PC-Compatible motherboards
2. Schiller said about Windows "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will. We won't do anything to preclude that." he didn't say a word about running Windows apps UNDER OS X (VM,VPC etc)
3. Windows only runs on PC-Compatibles

Therefore it is a reasonable deduction that Schiller meant although the combination may not be officially supported by Apple, Windows could probably run. Since Windows requires a PC-Compatible to run on, we can deduce further without a quantum leap of logic that Intel Macs will in fact be PC-Compatibles. Not rocket science. You can still make a PC-Compatible with an additional proprietary chip (or something) which will be unique ENOUGH to allow OS X to know it's running on a Apple brand PC (Mac), which also means OS X will fail on non-Apple hardware.

The thing I find amusing is if I'd said this is the way things would go two years ago, I'd have been torn to shreds. Now it's embraced with a concomitant ignorance of the implications.

Many think it's a good move, could be great for business, I think it's risky in the least, moreover I think it's a shame that Apple, once known as a great developer of it's own hardware is going down the PC route like all the others. OK it's doing it slightly different and may bring some really nice machines to the PC world, there will be many style-conscious Windows users who will want them, but although a great short-mid term move, longer term it could see further erosion of either the hardware or software side of the Mac, the worst case being both. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a few years further down the line the removal the hardware lock out and licencing of OS X, de-coupling the hardware and software, would be a suicidal move longer term, as much as it may be 'fun' to have OS X on a HP or Dell PC!

Look, I mean no disrespect, but in all seriousness, it's as clear as day to me and to everyone I've spoken to, who have all concluded the same. I can't spend my time here just saying the same thing over and over, it's wearing me out and making me miserable to be honest and I'm just slowly loosing enthusiasm in the whole thing. I'll end up just being labelled a troll or a FUD smearer, with nothing else to say.

Part of me wants to see just a swap of the CPU and supporting components, no PC compatibility beyond that in software (using the real CPU of course) under OS X, that's my HOPE.

What little information we have points to a PC-Compatible future, that's my FEAR. Because that would mean a complete change about for Apple and has only one implication.. MONEY, they are slowly looking to move into the PC market more agressively, I've always enjoyed the fact that Apple were on the independent fringes. If that makes me wrong, so be it.

I AM done on this thread now, please don't be offended if I don't reply, it will not be useful.

BTW if you thing that the Mac mini's are going to be dual-core 64bit, I think you'd better sit down, have a coffee and re-think that. ;-) I'll happily argue about that in a new thread..
 
Well, speculation is just that.

I don't think that Jobs is just going to drop the ball here. It's possible that Intel will make a custom chip for apple, one that will handle the needs of being able to go faster without having to install asbestos around the CPU. As it stands, the latest G5 needs to be liquid cooled. They're reaching a limit with the PowerPC line.

Radical change is needed to keep going. I'm thinking this is the main reason Jobs chose to go with Intel for the next generation in chips. This is a wise move if true. I'm hedging my bet on that OSX won't become like OS9.x. Jobs wouldn't be that stupid to jump off the bandwagon, just as the music vamps up.

I heard that Leopard (OSX 10.5) is preparing to pounce, developmentally. I feel confident the transition will be seamless and smooth and no integrity will be lost with OSX, and the hardware it will run on. Keep in mind, it's the OS that's prone to viruses, not the CPU.

-- Nyssa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top