Will Intel Macs do Windows?

resres
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
I keep reading in other threads people taking about dual booting the new Intel Macs into windows. Do people rally think that this will be possible? Apple will probably not be using BIOS, will whatever they use to boot the system be compatible with windows?



I know that Apple VP Phil Schiller said that while Apple will not support it, that some people probably will run windows on the Intel Mac. But that does not mean it will be easy, or even doable for the average computer user -- it quite possibly will be a major hack to get windows working on an Intel Mac.



Of course booting into window will probably be pointless if MS does a good job with Virtual PC. It should be able to run applications at nearly native speeds on the Intel Macs.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 89
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Res

    I keep reading in other threads people taking about dual booting the new Intel Macs into windows. Do people rally think that this will be possible? Apple will probably not be using BIOS, will whatever they use to boot the system be compatible with windows?



    I know that Apple VP Phil Schiller said that while Apple will not support it, that some people probably will run windows on the Intel Mac. But that does not mean it will be easy, or even doable for the average computer user -- it quite possibly will be a major hack to get windows working on an Intel Mac.



    Of course booting into window will probably be pointless if MS does a good job with Virtual PC. It should be able to run applications at nearly native speeds on the Intel Macs.






    This discussion is in 30 other threads. Do we need another?
  • Reply 2 of 89
    resres Posts: 711member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by onlooker

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



    I kept seeing it come up in various threads, so I thought it would be nice to have a place to discuss just this issue.
  • Reply 3 of 89
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Res

    I kept seeing it come up in various threads, so I thought it would be nice to have a place to discuss just this issue.



    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.
  • Reply 4 of 89
    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
  • Reply 5 of 89
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,748member
    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.
  • Reply 6 of 89
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    Virtual PC, WINE, VMWARE, etc...



    You don't need a PC Bios to run Windows or Windows apps.
  • Reply 7 of 89
    resres Posts: 711member
    I wonder if Microsoft knew that Apple was going to be switching over to Intel... it would explain their purchase of Virtual PC. If Virtual PC is going to run as fast on the new Intel based macs as some are saying, then it's sales are going to go way up.
  • Reply 8 of 89
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    I hope it will do Windows, or at least Roz Ho..
  • Reply 9 of 89
    blackcatblackcat Posts: 697member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by onlooker

    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.



    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!
  • Reply 10 of 89
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,748member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Res

    I wonder if Microsoft knew that Apple was going to be switching over to Intel... it would explain their purchase of Virtual PC. If Virtual PC is going to run as fast on the new Intel based macs as some are saying, then it's sales are going to go way up.



    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.
  • Reply 11 of 89
    Quote:

    Originally posted by onlooker

    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.



    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...
  • Reply 12 of 89
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,748member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Blackcat

    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.





    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...
  • Reply 13 of 89
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,748member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ragingloogie

    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...



    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.
  • Reply 14 of 89
    blackcatblackcat Posts: 697member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tulkas

    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...



    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.
  • Reply 15 of 89
    robin hoodrobin hood Posts: 513member
    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.
  • Reply 16 of 89
    blackcatblackcat Posts: 697member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Robin Hood

    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...





    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.
  • Reply 17 of 89
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Blackcat

    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 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.
  • Reply 18 of 89
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Sorry Telomar. but I don't find your theory that compelling.
  • Reply 19 of 89
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,268member
    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.
  • Reply 20 of 89
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    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...
Sign In or Register to comment.