Briefly: XP support on Mac?; Apple vs Apple; Virtualization
MS contemplating WinXP on Mac support
Microsoft is still uncertain about whether it will provide support for running Windows XP on Macs that use Apple's Boot camp technology.
According to The Wall Street, Microsoft said it is still studying whether it will offer technical support for Windows on Macs. "There are several open questions to address before we have a final answer," says Kevin Kutz, director of Microsoft's Windows client group told the publication.
The report also notes that Apple's Boot Camp requires a new copy of Windows XP, which is available for suggested retail prices of $199 and $299, depending upon the edition "It won't work to use less-costly upgrade versions or software installation disks for PCs that users already have."
Meanwhile, Apple's release of Boot Camp finally explains the disagreement Apple and Microsoft were previously rumored to have had over the way Windows should be supported on Intel Macs.
Apple vs Apple ruling not before Easter
A High Court judge is unlikely to rule before Easter in the legal fight between Apple Computer and the Beatles' Apple Corps record label over the use of the apple logo, the Associate Press is reporting. The report is contradictory to others which suggested a decision could have been handed down as early as this week.
In closing arguments, Apple Corps lawyer Geoffrey Vos reportedly said Apple Computer is a "Johnny-Come-Lately" that is attempting to steal the British company's trademark and increasingly encroach on its territory.
Anthony Grabiner, an attorney for Apple Computer, rebutted by arguing that the Cupertino, Calif.-based company is not in breach of its previous $26M settlement with the label, explaining that music lovers are smart enough to tell the difference between the use of the apple logos.
The presiding judge, Edward Mann, reserved his judgment for an unnamed date, but added that it was unlikely to be before the Easter break, the Associated Press reported.
First Virtualization Solution for Intel-powered Macs
On Thursday, a company called Parallels released a beta of its Windows virtualization solution for Intel Macs called Workstation 2.1.
The free-for-the-time-being software is the first virtualization solution specifically designed to work with Intel Macs. Unlike Apple's Boot Camp, the software enables users to run Windows, Linux and any other operating system at the same time as Mac OS X -- very similar to Virtual PC.
Workstation 2.1 will eventually cost $50 when it is formally released, but until then users may download a free, fully functional copy of the beta. Parallels is eager for Mac users to present feedback on the application through its Web site.
Microsoft is still uncertain about whether it will provide support for running Windows XP on Macs that use Apple's Boot camp technology.
According to The Wall Street, Microsoft said it is still studying whether it will offer technical support for Windows on Macs. "There are several open questions to address before we have a final answer," says Kevin Kutz, director of Microsoft's Windows client group told the publication.
The report also notes that Apple's Boot Camp requires a new copy of Windows XP, which is available for suggested retail prices of $199 and $299, depending upon the edition "It won't work to use less-costly upgrade versions or software installation disks for PCs that users already have."
Meanwhile, Apple's release of Boot Camp finally explains the disagreement Apple and Microsoft were previously rumored to have had over the way Windows should be supported on Intel Macs.
Apple vs Apple ruling not before Easter
A High Court judge is unlikely to rule before Easter in the legal fight between Apple Computer and the Beatles' Apple Corps record label over the use of the apple logo, the Associate Press is reporting. The report is contradictory to others which suggested a decision could have been handed down as early as this week.
In closing arguments, Apple Corps lawyer Geoffrey Vos reportedly said Apple Computer is a "Johnny-Come-Lately" that is attempting to steal the British company's trademark and increasingly encroach on its territory.
Anthony Grabiner, an attorney for Apple Computer, rebutted by arguing that the Cupertino, Calif.-based company is not in breach of its previous $26M settlement with the label, explaining that music lovers are smart enough to tell the difference between the use of the apple logos.
The presiding judge, Edward Mann, reserved his judgment for an unnamed date, but added that it was unlikely to be before the Easter break, the Associated Press reported.
First Virtualization Solution for Intel-powered Macs
On Thursday, a company called Parallels released a beta of its Windows virtualization solution for Intel Macs called Workstation 2.1.
The free-for-the-time-being software is the first virtualization solution specifically designed to work with Intel Macs. Unlike Apple's Boot Camp, the software enables users to run Windows, Linux and any other operating system at the same time as Mac OS X -- very similar to Virtual PC.
Workstation 2.1 will eventually cost $50 when it is formally released, but until then users may download a free, fully functional copy of the beta. Parallels is eager for Mac users to present feedback on the application through its Web site.
Comments
Originally posted by audiopollution
If MS will support XP on a white-box system I assemble myself from a motley assortment of parts, why wouldn't they support a paid-for full retail version of XP on what is essentially an Apple-branded PC?
That's a excellent point. User's are gonna need MS support.
Apple is not doing this to help Microsoft. Apple is using this to their own advantage. Apple does not want its customers to use Windows, they want their customers to use OS X.
What are the full implications of this? How does this benefit Apple? In the long run how does this hurt Microsoft?
Will it be to Microsoft's benefit to help? If Microsoft does help will it help Apple to its own detriment?
Originally posted by audiopollution
If MS will support XP on a white-box system I assemble myself from a motley assortment of parts, why wouldn't they support a paid-for full retail version of XP on what is essentially an Apple-branded PC?
Because it's Apple and Apple also doesn't want to pre-load windblows on the Hardware. It was just yesterday or the day before that it was in the news that Macrosloth was applying pressure to Hardware makers who want to, or are, selling OS-less PC's.... that's a no no with Redmond.
I'm thinking virtualization of some-sort will be available in 10.5 or very soon afterwards. There are so many virtualization options on the horizon as well as the fact that Apple has extensive experience with the OS 9 Classic environment within OS X. I know thats a different beast then XP and the motivation would be very different, but OS X and OS 9 were pretty different beasts as well and I'm betting some groundwork was put in place for something like this.
The boot camp beta is probably just to work out Windoze kinks on the hardware while the "new" classic environment is primed. Steve would dig going on stage to give a boot camp demo but then just show it off like it was Classic...
Of course there is the opinion that making Winchunks run nicely in OS X would negate the need to write software for the OS so that Apple may decide to just keep the dual boot solution.
I'd prefer the virtualization option with the OS being so compelling and easy to write code for that developers would flock to use the OS X only niceties rather then relying on simply having their Win-yuck software run in OS X ... But of course I'd also like world peace.
My 4.5 cents
Originally posted by tink
windblows...
That is hilarious!
Originally posted by tink
Windoze...
That's even funnier!
Originally posted by tink
Winchunks...
Dude, stop it! Your'e killing me!
Originally posted by tink
Win-yuck software...
Holy shit! Where do you come up with this stuff?
Originally posted by tink
Because it's Apple and Apple also doesn't want to pre-load windblows on the Hardware.
Doesn't make one ounce of difference. Didn't you read my 1st post in the thread, before continually misspelling Windows?
I think MS is working very hard to get a new version of VPC out the door and their agreement to keep Office going for another 5 or so years got them a lot of help from Apple to make the VPC for Mactels run at native (or very near native) speeds. Getting VPC for Mactels out really fast has now become important for MS as Parallels supports more than just 2000 & XP. That has to have MS worried big time. Maybe we'll even get a price break. Sure we will . . .
Originally posted by tink My 4.5 cents
Only if we had hyper inflation rate of 10000%
Originally posted by audiopollution
If MS will support XP on a white-box system I assemble myself from a motley assortment of parts, why wouldn't they support a paid-for full retail version of XP on what is essentially an Apple-branded PC?
Exactly! Why does Microsoft care who makes the PC your legally purchased Windows installation runs on? And, more importantly, what legal right does Microsoft even have to say that Apple (or anyone, even some no-name Korean box-n-parts manufacturer) can or can't make computers that can run Windows?
Also, re:
Meanwhile, Apple's release of Boot Camp finally explains the disagreement Apple and Microsoft were previously rumored to have had over the way Windows should be supported on Intel Macs.
How does this explain the disagreement? VirtualPC is specifically about NOT dual-booting. VirtualPC is also sold as a Windows-only product so users can have multiple instances of Windows running concurrently on their PCs, which is what VirtualPC on Macintel would be.
Now then, if Apple is going to be creating their own virtualization software, then Microsoft clearly has no need to spend lots of money developing software that Mac users wouldn't need to buy. But Microsoft makes money by selling Windows. So I don't see why they wouldn't want Apple making their computers capable of running Windows.
:d
Originally posted by audiopollution
Doesn't make one ounce of difference. Didn't you read my 1st post in the thread, before continually misspelling Windows?
I read your first post and yes I agree, they should and probably will have to support the their OS. (They can argue about an EFI hack)...
It still doesn't mean they will without kicking and screaming. They are doing quite a lot of that with other box makers, but then again those makers specifically have OS bundle contracts with Redmond.
That said I'm sure they prefer to sell as many copies of their OS for Apple boxes rather than not.
As far as my spelling....
.....caught me on one of those days.
My apologies for my adolescent tendencies, reinforced by years of keeping the companies
--> Windows <--
network up and running.
Originally posted by backtomac
That's a excellent point. User's are gonna need MS support.
I'm going to agree and disagree...
While the average Windows loser certainly needs support, they may not necessarily go to MS for it.
How many of us have been called up by relatives and friends (and friends of friends' distant cousins 18x removed!) to sort out PC problems?
In fact, I'd suggest that's why Windows got where it is today: critical mass amongst the users. If most people you know have Windows and can help you out, you're far more likely to get a Windows machine.
Maybe I should start telling people to call up MS instead of having me fiddle around with their machines. However, I don't think the call center could not handle the volume! They'd need to bring in India, Pakistan, and the rest of the Indian sub-continent to handle the number of problems my relatives have with Windows.
Originally posted by Anders
Actually it would make good business sense for MS to kill MBU and deliver a copy of Windows with every mac.
A couple of points against this:
1) the margin on the Mac Office 2004 product is higher than the Windows version, so even though the volume is lower, the MacBU turns a tidy profit.
(Microsoft often makes more from the sale of an iMac + Office 2004 than Apple does: gross margin is about 20% on the hardware, but 90% on the software)
2) home users pirate Office for Windows like anything: they bring a copy from work, borrow, download it, etc. Mac Office users are more likely to have bought it.
3) It would open the gates for OpenOffice.org to say, "We are the only cross-platform solution, even if you're not using Linux. Microsoft locks you into Windows forever."
4) Google (Writely aquisition, etc) and others are inevitably going to bring much of Office functionality to the web. Running a word processor in your browser might be even easier than in a virtualized Windows. Microsoft needs to keep Office as relevant as long as possible, which means expanding its reach (Office Live), not limiting it by killing off areas where it is established.
I don't get it. Explain slower, please.
Originally posted by tink
Of course there is the opinion that making Winchunks run nicely in OS X would negate the need to write software for the OS so that Apple may decide to just keep the dual boot solution.
Not really. This depends on how many people are using OS X, doesn't? The idea of enabling Windows to run on the Mac strengthens, enables and brings fourth that goal, the goal being to expand OS X's user base hence creating a profitable market for developers to continue developing for OS X. Once it reaches a certain level then the argument you propose is nulled.
One can see that this is the path that Apple needs to take. There is no other.
Dual boot is NOT a good solution. It will get some PC users into Macs and it is a good start, however, in order for Apple to really make a mark, Apple needs to enable OS X to run Windows from within OS X. The goal is to get users using OS X - current PC users that is. The door to this world will be opened by enabling them to run legacy software like Windows inside OS X.
The question is, can Apple legally do this?
Something is up. ZDNet, a pro MS's PR site, this week as been writing trashy articles to discredit Apple from wherever they can, a sure sign that the Empire feels it must create FUD to stop something.
Originally posted by audiopollution
If MS will support XP on a white-box system I assemble myself from a motley assortment of parts, why wouldn't they support a paid-for full retail version of XP on what is essentially an Apple-branded PC?
Apple's method might work fine, but might have suport implications. MS likely doesn't want to be responsible for failed installs because some dummy failed to follow Apple's instructions properly, and blames MS. Since Apple is refusing to suport their "beta" software (though I'm willing to bet that this is anything BUT beta), the only other place people will be able to go to is MS. And perhaps, MS is afraid that the way the install is done, may cause a non standard install, with the modified drivers and all.
Originally posted by tink
Because it's Apple and Apple also doesn't want to pre-load windblows on the Hardware. It was just yesterday or the day before that it was in the news that Macrosloth was applying pressure to Hardware makers who want to, or are, selling OS-less PC's.... that's a no no with Redmond.
I'm thinking virtualization of some-sort will be available in 10.5 or very soon afterwards. There are so many virtualization options on the horizon as well as the fact that Apple has extensive experience with the OS 9 Classic environment within OS X. I know thats a different beast then XP and the motivation would be very different, but OS X and OS 9 were pretty different beasts as well and I'm betting some groundwork was put in place for something like this.
The boot camp beta is probably just to work out Windoze kinks on the hardware while the "new" classic environment is primed. Steve would dig going on stage to give a boot camp demo but then just show it off like it was Classic...
Of course there is the opinion that making Winchunks run nicely in OS X would negate the need to write software for the OS so that Apple may decide to just keep the dual boot solution.
I'd prefer the virtualization option with the OS being so compelling and easy to write code for that developers would flock to use the OS X only niceties rather then relying on simply having their Win-yuck software run in OS X ... But of course I'd also like world peace.
My 4.5 cents
Your argument would be better without the name adjustments. MS is very likely to be happy to supply Windows for Apple users. After all, they considered Softwindows and VPC to be computers, for the purpose of giving a license to users. They also said, just the other day, that they would be very happy to give Apple a license to sell Windows.
And, if you bothered to read this entire article, you would have seen the part at the bottom.
Originally posted by wilco
That is hilarious!
That's even funnier!
Dude, stop it! Your'e killing me!
Holy shit! Where do you come up with this stuff?
It's pretty standard Maclot language.
Originally posted by kenaustus
[B]I have a feeling that MS will be happy to support consumers who pay full price for XP - they make far more per license than they do from OEM sales and would be stupid to blow that lucrative market.
Damn right!
I think MS is working very hard to get a new version of VPC out the door and their agreement to keep Office going for another 5 or so years got them a lot of help from Apple to make the VPC for Mactels run at native (or very near native) speeds. Getting VPC for Mactels out really fast has now become important for MS as Parallels supports more than just 2000 & XP. That has to have MS worried big time. Maybe we'll even get a price break. [/QUOTE]
Right here too. MS might very well drop the price of VPC. don't forget that with Office Pro, for the Mac, you get VPC for free.