Briefly: XP support on Mac?; Apple vs Apple; Virtualization

[AppleInsider]

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.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[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?

[backtomac]

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.

[TenoBell]

MS is probably still trying to wrap their minds around this whole new development.

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?

[tink]

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

[chartpacs]

Do you think Apple will ever officially license Windows? To attract potential switchers, perhaps they could offer incentive like "Purchase Windows XP for $129 whenever you purchase a Mac". Having customers pay full retail price for XP might be dissuade a lot of people.

[wilco]

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?

[audiopollution]

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?

[kenaustus]

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. Of course, MS has been known to do stupid things - right Bob?

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 . . .

[Anders]

Originally posted by tink My 4.5 cents

Only if we had hyper inflation rate of 10000%

[dak splunder]

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

[Anders]

Actually it would make good business sense for MS to kill MBU and deliver a copy of Windows with every mac.

[tink]

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.

[michaelb]

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.

[michaelb]

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.

[sdfisher]

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.

I don't get it. Explain slower, please.

[iPeon]

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.

[melgross]

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.

[melgross]

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.

[melgross]

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.

[melgross]

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.

[melgross]

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.

MS could kill the MBU, but they couldn't give a copy with every Mac. Apple would have to agree to that.

But, they could give a copy to everyone who sends them a receipt, and proof off the box, that they just bought a new Mac.

[iPeon]

Originally posted by melgross
MS could kill the MBU, but they couldn't give a copy with every Mac. Apple would have to agree to that.

But, they could give a copy to everyone who sends them a receipt, and proof off the box, that they just bought a new Mac.

Wouldn't that negate the idea behind placing (advertising) a copy of Office inside every Mac? The idea is to show users that they have that piece of software available if they want to use it, after all, it's only a trial version. It's just a way to advertise a product.

[backtomac]

Originally posted by michaelb
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.

When we purchase windows machines for work we get support from the hardware maker, Dell in our case. Since Apple is on record as saying they aint supporting windows (wise move on their part), who does? Based on my experience with windows, I'm gonna go out on a limb a say that a large percentage of users will need a liitle help.

Saw your other comments about MBU and think they are good points.

[dak splunder]

Originally posted by backtomac
When we purchase windows machines for work we get support from the hardware maker, Dell in our case. Since Apple is on record as saying they aint supporting windows (wise move on their part), who does?

When you purchase a windows machine from Snork Electronics -- a beige box, motherboard, etc -- where do you get your support? When you buy a used windows machine from Gary on eBay, where do you get your support?

There are lots of people with Windows machines that don't get manufacturer support. Windows, as a piece of software, is supposed to be supported by its maker. Microsoft.

I bet Dell offers Windows support as a customer service perk to make customers feel better about buying a Dell. (If it's true, it's a very admirable policy.)

Apple buyers have never had to deal with the concept of hardware and operating system being from two different places. (Except for the brief reign of clones.)

:d

[melgross]

Originally posted by iPeon
Wouldn't that negate the idea behind placing (advertising) a copy of Office inside every Mac? The idea is to show users that they have that piece of software available if they want to use it, after all, it's only a trial version. It's just a way to advertise a product.

there's a big difference between advertizing something, and giving away something for free.

I'm not advocating this, you understand.

I'm just making what Anders suggested, actually possible.

[Anders]

My point is this:

Dual boot and esp. virtualization has a positive side and a negative side to it. The positive is easing the switch process, thus adding more Mac users. The negative side is the potential loss of developers ("we work on Macs. Just open your Windows on your Mac and use our program through that").

Each player can "rock the boat" with the tools they have. Apple can try to make Mac OS X much more attractive than Windows, for the user but esp. for the developer. They can have cross OS developer tools etc, enforcing the positive side and minimizing the negative side.

MS can do the opposite with the tools they have. If they provide Windows with every Mac (probably the way melgross suggest) and make you open it every time you want to use Word, Excel etc. it would be much easier for other developers to drop direct Mac OS X support since most users already have Windows open on their computer all the time. Then when people need to buy their next computer some will go non-mac, because one of the two main point of buying a Mac (great OS and pretty hardware) suddenly became a non issue.

[copeland]

Well I think Apple will never offer Windows alongside OS X preinstalled (I don't even think they will sell it seperately). To my mind Apple is now trying a variant of what Microsoft did during the "browser wars". Apple sells you a computer that will run Windows at native speed alongside OS X (giving you - the Windows user - the cozy feeling you can go back without extra cost). But when you start your new shiny machine up, you are going to see OS X (preinstalled).
Now you bought an Apple and you heard a lot about their software (iPod, iTunes anywhere) so you give it a shot. Now you see you can do with the Mac, whatever you could do with you PC - mail, browser, iMovie, iPhoto, iWeb ...
So why bother downloading some software to get into the hassle to install another operating system; you can mail your friends, you even get iChat AV with a camera included, you can phone your friends, you can do all you have allways done.
This is a clear shot at the consumer, and you don't want your customer to move back.

[iPeon]

That scenario where developers would stop making apps for the Mac because the Mac can now run Windows is very, very, very unlikely to happen because if that where true then those developers would already have said "just get a PC if you want to use our apps because we make no money making apps for the Mac." Developers know that Mac users want Mac apps and that they will favor apps that run on Mac OS X.

There is far more to gain from the ability to run Windows virtually on the Mac than to continue not to. About 95% more!!!

[funkfeend]

I bet Dell offers Windows support as a customer service perk to make customers feel better about buying a Dell. (If it's true, it's a very admirable policy.)

Dell gets a super sweet deal on Windows licences because they agree to support the software. MS learned a long time ago that the most expensive part of their business was support. Now, OEMs give support (arguable) with the systems they sell and MS is off the hook. Of course, you can get support from MS, but it will cost you. I think even if you build a system yourself and buy Winhose (thought up that one all by myself :-p) retail, you don't get much - if any - free support from MS. No big deal for them cuz that is a very small segment of the market and if you built your own system, you probably won't be calling for support anyway.

[Tazznb]

Personally I don't blame Apple one bit in creating a seperate boot environment for OS X, and XP. When an OS has as many security, design, and virus woes as Windows I would keep the contaminants as far away from my clean running OS as possible.

Because from then out (after the osses are conjoined at the head) you won't know where all the new problems are originating from, as well as hacking breeches, and viruses. Maybe OS X will be affected by an MS virus / fault.

In other words I can guarantee that Apple will be blamed as well as MS for new problems arising from this "Simultaneous running of osses."

[backtomac]

Originally posted by melgross

But, they could give a copy to everyone who sends them a receipt, and proof off the box, that they just bought a new Mac.

Would this run against anti-trust laws and would MS want to risk a battle with the justice department?

[Doxxic]

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.

The disagreement explains Boot Camp. Not the other way round.

If Boot Camp had been sure to be released, Apple wouldn't have cared if Microsoft would release VPC Intel or not, so there would have been no disagreement.

Therefore, if there has been a disagreement, Boot Camp must be a reaction to the disagreement.

For that reason, considering the time it's going to take Adobe to release Photoshop for Intel, and considering that there's a good chance that Boot Camp is indeed a reaction to MS's doubts about releasing VPC for MacTel, we can be rather sure that Apple is currently considering a competitor to Photoshop as well.

[melgross]

Originally posted by backtomac
Would this run against anti-trust laws and would MS want to risk a battle with the justice department?

I don't see why it would. It's just an offer. You would have to be proactive. there is no law saying that they can't give it away.

There's even talk of MS BUYING Apple. The conversation is whether that would trigger anti-trust, and the answer isn't clear!

[IonYz]

Yeah, stop tink hehe. Misspelling Windows dozens of ways is old. Anyway, I don't get the part about OEM versions of Windows won't work, they need to be full retail? Why? I thought OEM was the same exact data as retail just under different licensing. I paid full price for Windows 2000, never again.

Anders
Actually it would make good business sense for MS to kill MBU and deliver a copy of Windows with every mac.

Not unless virtualization is offered AND Windows is rootless. Yup. Just like running X11 or Classic. If Windows ran rootless ontop of OS X it would be acceptable, barely. I don't like looking at a Windows UI on OS X just like I don't like seeing X11 widgets on OS X. But running MS Apps inside a window or dual booting wouldn't work for the average user.

[tink]

Originally posted by melgross
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.

I agree (in regards to the name adjustments). If you "bothered to read" my other post, you would have seen at the bottom....

My apologies for my adolescent tendencies, reinforced by years of keeping the companies
--> Windows <--
network up and running.

And I actually did read the entire article and it was no bother at all, in fact I enjoyed and found it interesting enough to comment on it.

I don't think Apple will ever license to sell Windows, but who knows. I think Apple is interested on increasing OS X market share. If Apple sold systems with a copy of Windows then there would be a 1 to 1 OS ratio and Apples market share wouldn't change with those systems sold. (Is this fuzzy math)?

In regards to "the part at the bottom" ...
...thus my mentioning many virtulization solution becoming available in the future in my post. These including VMware ports and other open source efforts as well as virtulization in the CPU itself. I haven't heard any news as to how well these solutions work yet and Apple has never said they will supply a virtualiation option other then dual boot.

[Anders]

Originally posted by IonYz
Not unless virtualization is offered AND Windows is rootless. Yup. Just like running X11 or Classic. If Windows ran rootless ontop of OS X it would be acceptable, barely. I don't like looking at a Windows UI on OS X just like I don't like seeing X11 widgets on OS X. But running MS Apps inside a window or dual booting wouldn't work for the average user.

Full screen mode. And it doesn´t have to be perfect, actually it would be better for the outlined strategy if it wasn´t perfect or good but merely good enough for people not to migrate to another office suite.

[tink]

Originally posted by Anders
Full screen mode. And it doesn´t have to be perfect, actually it would be better for the outlined strategy if it wasn´t perfect or good but merely good enough for people not to migrate to another office suite.

This would be the best solution for the end user, but I think this wouldn't be acceptable for MS. Not that they say "you can't do that", unless there is some sort copyright violations with these virtualization option. MS could however apply pressure on Apple in other ways... like threatening to stop development for IE or something...

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by tink
MS could however apply pressure on Apple in other ways... like threatening to stop development for IE or something...

Well, that pressure tactic didn't work, huh?

No idea if you're being sarcastic, but if you didn't know:

http://www.microsoft.com/mac/product...ternetexplorer

[tink]

Originally posted by audiopollution
Well, that pressure tactic didn't work, huh?

No idea if you're being sarcastic, but if you didn't know:

http://www.microsoft.com/mac/product...ternetexplorer

Viva la sarcasm.