Will Intel Macs do Windows?

This discussion is in 30 other threads. Do we need another?

Ok, then I don't think it will be possible. It's better for Apple is if it isn't. Nobody will bother to port their apps to native Mac OS if you can run both. How will Apple get any new possible developers with this switch if they really don't need to port anything. I think Apple being on x86 makes them appear as a more attractive, and viable option now as a port, but if they can have their app running natively on a Mac under a different OS booted what's the point? I'd like to see XSI on a Mac. Native under Mac OS.

that there is a good question... and anything is possible.. but what would it take for it to be possible? a lot of headaches? i think so.... prolly at least... anyways... im happy w/ my macs that i have now... and the pc i have for games and such... i dont need anything else... except a 69 dodge charger

I think it will definately be possible, but that doesn't mean trivial.

It may in Apple's interests to make it difficult, so as to encourage Mac software development. Though, one could argue that they might benefit from some additional system sales, where they make their money, if they did allow it.

Also, even if it was trivial to run Windows on Macs, that hardly make it convienient. How many remember what a pain in the ass it was during the OSX migration to have to reboot when Classic wasn't able to handle a particular OS9 task? Developers are not stupid. Some may think that if Macs user can boot into Windows, then don't bother doing a native app. But, there will be many users who will find a similar app that will run natively, and avoid the fairly major inconvienience of a reboot. Continue with a Mac version and you don't automatically drop any of your customers.

Now, if Apple was to create a redbox, or Windows compatibility environment, that could drastically hurt Mac development. I see that as a non-starter. Devs would have no compelling reason to do Mac versions of software at that point. This doesn't automatically lead to lost system sales, infact it could be something of a Mac selling point ('buy a Mac, run Windows apps'). But, fewer and fewer Mac specific apps would leave Apple relying on MS not to make changes that might break the redbox. Compatibility environments are never perfect, and enough bad press about any glitches could in turn lead to lost Mac sales.

Also, there are other ways to encourage Mac native development. I think Apple absolutly must release cocoa for Windows. At the least, this will allow Mac-only developers a suddenly huge market of Windows users. It could also spur new Mac native development, as even some Windows developers might see the wisdom of writing once and running on 2 major platforms. New developers might find xCode a more compelling alternative if they gain easy, trivial access to users on both sides.

Virtual PC, WINE, VMWARE, etc...

You don't need a PC Bios to run Windows or Windows apps.

I hope it will do Windows, or at least Roz Ho..

Totally agree. Allowing easy Windows installation could be a very bad thing for Apple. I can't see MS wanting it either because in there eyes it will promote piracy.

I can also see VPC being hobbled by MS, as having it run well on Macs could produce a switcher effect. I switched to Mac after System 7 rsn so well in ShapeShifter for Amiga back in '97.

As for ports, bring on 3DS Max!

They bought Virtual PC for their Windows clients. Vitualization, particularly virtual servers are a big deal. Have Mac emulation software was a side effect of the deal.

However, pre-knowledge of the possibility of the switch to Intel may explain when they never really optimized for G5...or it could be because the just didn't care about the Mac side. Virtual PC for Windows is very popular now.

true true... if intel macs run both, then apple's idea/point to converging w/ intel is useless b/c the idea is to get more developers as stated above.... but at the same time, people want to play pc games would prolly find it more convenient...

How would it promote piracy in their eyes? Since they control the sale of VPC, they know that legit sales also mean legit Windows sales. Sure there will be piracy, just as there is on regular wintel boxes. Saying MS would be averse to VPC/Windows sales is sort of like saying they see selling Windows as promoting piracy...

Having to reboot into another OS is not convienient. If you have ever run a multiboot box, especially your primary box, you know that it is a bit of a pain having to shut everything down to go into another OS to accomplish another task...

This whole multiboot 'problem' for Apple is like saying that people won't develop Mac software, becuse customers could also be running a PC in their house, so they can just run our software on that. In fact, tht scenario is more likely to cause devs to reconsider Mac development than a dual-boot scenario.

I don't mean under VPC (which is why I mentioned it separately) I mean dual booting. MS already sees PCs sold without Windows as a piracy threat, and if we are honest the majority of us won't be paying for XP Pro to run it on our Macs, it'll be a nice CDR.

So I think Apple should and will take steps to block easy booting of Windows, that way it protects its developers, including MS.

Apple won't take any steps to stop you from installing Windows, they WILL however stop you from installing Mac OS X on a white box PC. I think people tend to mix up those two...

In other news, the Xbox hack was to install Linux on it, and not to install the Xbox operating system on a white box PC.

Despite what Phil said, I don't think we'll know until they are released. Windows may not even understand the hardware enough to run correctly, and I don't see MS canabalising their own VPC sales by introducing Mac support in their OS.

I continue to fail to see the reasoning behind this argument. If people are switching away from Windows the last thing they want to have to do is reboot to load software. It defeats the whole purpose of switching and is a royal pain. VPC and other virtualisation software will sell better but companies aren't going to stop porting just because Macs could run Windows simply because it'll be too much of a hassle for people to want to. I expect all current major developers will switch and customers will have the benefit of being able to switch to Macs and not run the risk of being without windows apps. I expect this will help Apple if anything. If marketshare rises so will the number of developers.

Sorry Telomar. but I don't find your theory that compelling.

I don't expect Apple to change the Intel motherboards all that much so I expect Windows to install with little pain. Why would apple spend the R&D and time to recreate the wheel. Intel's designs are amongst the top in the industry when realiability and speed are required.

Apple is smart in not taking steps to prevent Windows installation. They stand to lose nothing because they will not support XP/Longhorn on Mactel so install at your own risk.

Developers cannot count on an unsupported OS for delivery of their product so they will still take the Cocoa/Xcode route and create native apps.

Apple is strengthened by the ability to triple boot but isn't harmed if someone plans to do that. You get a computer that will be %10-15 more expensive but runs the top 3 OS in on the planet. That's a feature even though it won't be promoted as such.

That's a good point...

I second that

I think the dual boot ability will do funny things to the OS market share statistics. If I have legal copies of OSX and Windows installed, the OSX statistics go up by one, but so do the Windows statistics. If I use OSX most of the time and Windows only when absolutely necessary, it wouldn't be fair to be counted as a real Windows user.

Guess you've never tried a dual boot system. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If developers wanted to abandon the mac platform they could have done it at any time. In fact many already do tell you to straight out go and buy a PC now. Apple switching platforms really does nothing to change the status quo. People want native apps for convenience to run on their OS of choice not because of their processor choice and they will continue to want them.

Short of marketshare changes I'd be very surprised to see that I'm wrong. That's why you'd find most developers and analysts are pretty unphased.

I can't believe you are all actually having this discussion. Of course you will be able to run Windows, through dual-boot (pain) or VPC - thats the whole beauty of this Intel move. No more excuses for people not to buy a Mac, plus all those crappy little programs and do-dads that people need for their work that will never be Mac Native. It makes absolutely no difference to Mac developers and MS sell more copies of LongWait. OS X has nothing to fear form Windows running on the same Mac - its going sell a shitload more machines. OS X on PC however would be an absolute disaster fo Apple for obvious reasons.

Great post vinney, that sums it all up.

In addition, when considering ports, there is the cost arguement. I have seen this expecially WRT game ports. Many have said that if a mac can run windows (inside VPC) or as dual boot, game developers will abandon the mac platform and force you buy the PC version.

This won't happen. In addition to the inconvenience issues already mention (and as a PPC linux/MacOS dual-booter for manmy years prior to OSX, I heartily agree with BTW), there is a cost issue. A stand alone copy of windows in VPC casts, what... 500 smackers or so? For 500$ I could buy a freaking computer (with windows!) and KVM switch (almost).

If any current game dev thinks they can retain their position in the mac market while doing no mac port, you can rest assured that they won't sell many games to mac users. Its a marketplace, and a large one at that. Some lightbulb will move in and make money where the current porter was uncompetitive.

I don't know.... something in me says it is unwise to have dual-boot machines. Running Windows within a window seems like a better situation: that way it would protect the mac system from getting screwed up by the windows insecurity probs as well as the instability issues.

The development angle is really the crux of the matter: how to get developers to develop for Macs alone when they can boot Windows and run their programs seems to reduce development for the mac to a labor of love. Market possibilities will trump ease-of-use & superior mac architecture any day, is my guess. Forcing some inconvenient partitioning etc. to make it happen might insulate the Mac-experience as well. Just SOMETHING to make the Mac still a Mac.

I think that facilitating the ease of PORTING to Mac would be a far better, solution--and one that would much better serve Apple's interests in the long run.

Hope Springs Eternal,

Mandricard
AppleOutsider

how about other non-windows OS's on the new Macs like linux? Just because Apple's not supporting/crippling/avoiding like hell windows on macs, are they doing anything about other OS's?

Big deal. You can run Linux on just about any Mac now. Before Apple bought NeXT, it had its own distribution of Linux.

Why would someone buy a Mac at a premium price to run Windows? What you're saying, if I read it right, is that Mac users will just start buying Windows versions of apps (or Windows apps, if there is no Mac version) and running them in Windows on their Mac. Then, over time, these Mac users will eventually run all of their apps in Windows and wont even bother booting into OS X.

So Mac users would all use Windows if only Macs could boot into Windows? If so, then I'd suggest you have a very misinformed stereotype of Mac users. Mac users buy Macs because they don't want to use Windows. They pay a several hundred dollar premium to run OS X, and most of them prefer OS X over Windows enough that they do not run Windows in VPC unless absolutely necessary.

If developers start killing critical applications for OS X, people aren't going to buy Macs to boot into Windows, they're just going to buy Wintel boxes and save some dough. Maybe a few fanatics will pay extra for the style of the Mac boxes, but that will be a rare event.

Even for games, most people would rather not reboot the system into Windows. The hardcore gamers won't buy Macs anyways, so the Mac market is left with more casual gamers who tend to play games to take a break from doing other things. Who wants to close all open documents and shut down OS X to take a 30 minute Quake 4 break? Even Linux users scream for their own versions of popular games like Quake 3A. They could just boot into Windows, but they'd rather not, because it's a hassle, and because they're running Linux so they don't have to run Windows.

Mac users run OS X because they don't want to run Windows. They already have the option to buy a Wintel, but they don't. Making Windows an option on Macs doesn't change anything.

Furthermore, this post is moot, because Macs will never run Windows out of the box. Only bad-ass h4XXo4s will be able to run Windows on their Macs.

Hey whoa there trigger. That's not what I was saying, you got it backwards.
I said new developers that are not currently developing applications for the mac wouldn't see any need to port their apps to the Mac OS now, {even though It may look like a more attractive porting option now that they are using intel processors} because all Mac users could now use their applications on these Macs without the trouble of porting them.

Why would a developer like softimage bother to port XSI now that they don't have to? That's what I'm saying, If windows runs on everybodys Mac why bother porting it? It's a perfect application as it is. I sure as sh*t wouldn't bother. Who would?

It's a hell of a lot easier for you to go and buy a copy of windows to run that app than it is for them to start porting it for you.

Windows needs to be locked out!

And just to add fuel to what I said in brackets {}. I think a lot of developers that have had repeated emails asking for Mac versions of their applications may now be looking at an Apple version because of the intel switch. It must look less menacing to a developer now that the Mac is essentially an x86 PC, having only the (Unix) Mac OS separating it from the rest.

Well, perhaps they would bother if they could sell more copies of their software that way? Isn't it a simple question of 'if Mac marketshare goes up, then more users will demand a seamless Mac OS X experience', instead of a hackish windows/wine/dual-boot/vpc- solution? Wouldn't a 'perfect' application be well integrated with the OS..?

Look at windows users - how many of them really bother to install cygwin, compile, etc. to get access to unix-only apps, etc?

So, in my eyes, getting the developers attention is dependent on Apple gaining market share in the longer run. In the short run, they have secured their developer base by publizising the shift to Intel this early.

If my customers were buying Macs to use for Work, I would be pretty foolish to expect them to just reboot their systems throughout the day to use my software. Even home users would find it just way too inconvienient to have to reboot all the time. During the MacOS->MacOSX transition, did you find it convienient to have to boot into Classic often? This is such a non-starter of an issue. It does not harm Apple, nor discourage development, to allow Windows to run on Mac hardware.

Most people have more than one computer. Recent statistics say that most Mac owners also have a PC. This would be, by far, more of an incentive for developers to stop Mac development or stop consideration of Mac development.

The only issue for Apple in regards to Windows and Window apps, is if Windows apps can run within OSX. And even here, things like WINE and VPC are non-trivial for your average home user to setup.

Correction: VPC is trivial to set up. All that is required is to run the installer.

This thread is going painfully awry. Many of you are oblivius to the huge movement that has been underway for some time. Virtualization. By 2007 over half of Intel's chips will support hardware VT right in the CPU.

The next major upgrade to PCI-Express will contain virtualization features which is important when the bus doubles in speed.

Thus it's rather daft to think Apple should be locking out other OS vendors when it's the antithesis of what's happening in the market at large.

Within the decade it'll be common place to run 3 or more OS simultaneously "without" the need to reboot. Whether or not this causes developers to develop native apps is really unknown but what would it matter really. If I'm running Final Cut Pro 7 on my OS X and I want to run XSI 5 on Longhorn that's not a pain point for me because accessing either OS is just a mouse click away.

Nay Apple shouldn't block anyone because they stand to benefit from virtualization themselves if they can develop a cadre of apps that make OSX Intel indispensable to a large portion of the market. Apple will have more doors open than close. I guarantee it.

Also, know the recommended allocation of resources for the guest system. Ensure that you have the required amounts of disk space required. Be familiar with the Windows installation process.

All in all, I would say it is a non-trivial processs for grandma. It isn't difficult, but that doesn't mean non-trivial.

How would they sell more copies? If you want it, or need it, you will buy it. It's that simple. It's going to be that simple an answer to a developer too. To me it looks like you can already use it on your Mac, so why should I have to go through a bunch of crap to satisfy your whining butt. I don't. And that's why it's going to take me that much longer to port any application to that OS of yours. Because you can already use it. I think I'm going to spend my time developing new tools, and making my app more responsive, and attractive to the minions who already admire it, and the ones already using it. That's a hell of a lot easier for me. If you want it, Run it in windows. You have that option.

If a developer says "hey, users can just boot their Macs into Windows, so I can avoid doing a Mac version", they are either a) retarded or b) looking for an reason to not do the Mac version. In either case, they already have a better reason for not doing Mac version for Mac users...that reason is cheap Windows PCs. If all they need is to say "you can already use it", they already have that excuse.

rebooting is a pain, and no intelligent developer is going to say "hey, people can reboot their Macs into Windows, so they don't need a Mac version". None. Before they get to that point, they would have already found far more intelligent and compelling reasons not to do Mac software, i.e. cheap PCs, tiny Mac marketshare, dominance of Windows etc.

If Macs being dual boot is the straw that broke the camels back for their Mac development, they are pretty slow learners.