A 150% price increase is still a very good reason not to switch for most Windows users. If I was Bill Gates I'd be popping open the champaign right now, their 95% market share will get closer to 100%, with 5% having both OS's.
And how are those Apple mice going to work with Windows XP, anyway?
Unless Bill's illiterate, I suspect he'll be popping open the champagne rather than the champaign.
This is a risky game for Apple - on the one hand a lot of people will buy Macs, knowing that they can run that essential Windows only app occasionally, and eventually loving OSX so much that they barely use Windows (I can think of some friends in this category).
On the other hand, lazy developers now have an excuse to develop just for Windows. Fingers crossed that doesn't happen. It wouldn't bother me hugely as I rely on very few third party apps (Office, Messenger and Photoshop Elements are the only major non-Apple apps I have), but if too many developers get lazy, it is a dangerous scenario.
Next on the agenda: Cocoa for Windows, in Xcode. All developers can move to Xcode and have a single codebase for the entire market. As the Mac market share skyrockets, developers will have more and more reason to do this. Cocoa already has objects and methods to do everything you can imagine, and all Apple has to do is change the internals of the frameworks so that they call into Windows dlls instead of Mac OS X frameworks. If Mac hardware sales get to, let's say 15% of the market, then some developers will move to Xcode to take advantage of that revenue stream, and others will follow.
Woah. Slow down there cowboy! While that sounds great, making XCode cross platform would be a mammoth undertaking. Plus, Apple want to create a nice developer environment so that the Mac gets loads of cool apps which makes the Mac a more attractive platform for users which means more Mac sales. If Apple were to make XCode cross platform, there would be less of a reason for current Windows users to switch. They could have their cake and eat it by running Windows on a cheap Dell and using iLife.
You'd never know though. 'hell is freezing over' seems to be an obligatory phrase with every bit of Apple news lately.
I believe there are ways to take the SP2 download and your original XP disc and merge the two onto a new CD-R so you start with an XP/SP2 install. I believe the term you want to search on is "slipstream". That's what I've heard it called.
[edit]
Here's a step by step instruction on slipstreaming XP + SP2:
Well, you just had to go and blow that excuse for me. Thanks! Wonder if it'll work with my XP ugrade (from NT) disks. Getting another mini is still a few months off for me though, the one I have isn't even a year old. What I really just need to do is finish migrating my old data over to Mac applications and formats.
That said, the average Windows user isn't going to be able to go do this.
Well, this is pretty useless, neither of the XP licenses/disks I have are Service Pack 2 based. This might have helped me decide to get an Intel Mac mini sooner, so I could get rid of the aging PC I keep around for Windows stuff. I'm not going to buy another copy of Windows just to do it though.
Since this is probably true for most anyone with a system older than a couple years, this doesn't seem like that useful of an approach. Apple ought to be aiming for people with aging XP systems as a way to get them over to Mac OS. People with newer copies of XP probably aren't the ones who will go out and buy a Mac just to run XP on it.
I haven't read all of the many pages of comments about Boot Camp, but in case no one else has answered your question:
That's a free app which lets you roll your own XP cd's from a master, you can add service packs straight from the freely available .exe M$ provide. Also good for overriding various Windows settings before its even installed ... though I personally would play it safe as I don't know how Boot Camp would like many of those changed.
Well, you just had to go and blow that excuse for me. Thanks! Wonder if it'll work with my XP ugrade (from NT) disks. Getting another mini is still a few months off for me though, the one I have isn't even a year old. What I really just need to do is finish migrating my old data over to Mac applications and formats.
That said, the average Windows user isn't going to be able to go do this.
I doubt this will work with XP Upgrade discs. You'll need a full install disc in order to slipstream. Apple's BootCamp page also says XP upgrade discs won't work.
I think a majority here are indeed missing the fact that developers develop for PEOPLE. Not for an operating system. Mac is still the best Operating System in the world, and will be for a long time. There's no imagineable way windows can get ahead of Mac. Steve Jobs knows this, that's why this isn't a risky move for apple. As long as their are OSX users, there will be OSX developers.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Mac only has 4% of the market (nothing compared to windows), and they have a fantastic developer base! Clearly the developers don't see an advantage to writing for windows.
Personally, I just don't see the "Windows apps running transparently alongside OSX apps" functionality coming from Apple that a lot of people here are hoping for. Why? Because it would ruin the consistent* OSX experience.
Apple works very hard to make all of their apps feel the same. It's part of a good UI - make everything work the same so the user develops a sense of trust and intuition about how the system behaves. Drop Windows applications in unchanged - with their window-attached toolbars and differently arranged menus - and the experience will go to hell.
We've seen it happen already - people love to complain about how X Windows applications feel out of place on OSX. I think there were only two reasons Apple included X Windows functionality. First, it meant that they had a load of applications, right off the bat, that were fairly simple to port to OSX. Second, having a known, standard technology that is popular among the university crowd was a great draw for early adopters, who tend to be from the university crowd. I know some will say that these two points apply perfectly to Windows apps as well, but I think there is a difference.
The difference is that people who wanted to run X Windows apps on OSX were used to inconsistent interfaces. They expected every single X app to behave [sometimes completely] differently. So, mucking their UI was no big deal. Your average Windows user, OTOH doesn't put up with near as much. I'll say that the Windows interface is not nearly as consistent as OSX's, but it is definitely more consistent than X Windows. Just letting any old Windows program pop up a window on an OSX desktop will confuse the average user. (And if Apple advertises that it's possible, many average users will want to do it whether they need to or not.) They won't understand why this one app looks totally different than their others.
So, after that whole rant, I'd like to say that if Apple does provide the ability to run Windows apps without a reboot, I think we'll see something like a fast user switch to a Windows desktop that you can start in the background. Only there will you be able to launch and use Windows apps - keeping the visuals separate. There may be some nice cut&paste mechanism for getting data back and forth, but there will still be a line drawn somewhere.
My $0.02,
CrazyWingman
*Yes, I know, we can all point out several places where OSX is already inconsistent, but I'd consider those places meaningless in comparison to Windows apps in OSX.
Apple's challenge is/was/will-continue-to-be making OS X compelling enough to develop for and having truly compelling applications for it.
....
This is a potentially risky move. But without great risk, there is rarely great reward. This is a calculate gamble on their part. Probably a smart one. [/B]
I read someone post yesterday about the Yellow Box (i.e. running Apple apps on Windows machines). Now, imagine if Apple were to allow xCode to compile for both OS X and an installed Yellow Box on Windows. This would allow most software to be given the choice of running on either OS.
Does this mean that all Apple's apps would run on Windows? No, because they would want people to buy a Mac to run them (so they would not compile it for Yellow Box Windows). It would however allow develpers to write once and run on both OS X and Windows , if they wanted to.
Why would developers want to do this? Because OS X has some very nice features like Core Image/Audio/Data that make programs much easier to write. Apple would control more software that was written for OS X and Windows.
Unless Bill's illiterate, I suspect he'll be popping open the champagne rather than the champaign.
This is a risky game for Apple - on the one hand a lot of people will buy Macs, knowing that they can run that essential Windows only app occasionally, and eventually loving OSX so much that they barely use Windows (I can think of some friends in this category).
On the other hand, lazy developers now have an excuse to develop just for Windows. Fingers crossed that doesn't happen. It wouldn't bother me hugely as I rely on very few third party apps (Office, Messenger and Photoshop Elements are the only major non-Apple apps I have), but if too many developers get lazy, it is a dangerous scenario.
I didn't think typos were anything to take "hugely."
It's not a matter of laziness, its a matter of the bottom line. Developers aren't in the business of providing charity to OS's. That being said, I agree that in the end, OSX may prove to be preferable to many when they get to have both. I think this will especially help Apple in the corporate and education markets too.
Well, this is pretty useless, neither of the XP licenses/disks I have are Service Pack 2 based. This might have helped me decide to get an Intel Mac mini sooner, so I could get rid of the aging PC I keep around for Windows stuff. I'm not going to buy another copy of Windows just to do it though.
Since this is probably true for most anyone with a system older than a couple years, this doesn't seem like that useful of an approach. Apple ought to be aiming for people with aging XP systems as a way to get them over to Mac OS. People with newer copies of XP probably aren't the ones who will go out and buy a Mac just to run XP on it.
you could take your xp disk and slipstream it with sp2
A 150% price increase is still a very good reason not to switch for most Windows users. If I was Bill Gates I'd be popping open the champaign right now, their 95% market share will get closer to 100%, with 5% having both OS's.
And how are those Apple mice going to work with Windows XP, anyway?
Welcome to the 21st century where Intel Macs ship with multi-button mice and Apple computers are actually about the same price as any other quality brand.
Sure, they aren't e-machines level of cheap, but it shows. Any consumer can spot that.
It's Windows but...with an 'X' in the center...so it's Mac...and Windows...but...MACIFIED!
AHH!
Anyways, this is great news. And if I didn't just buy a new camera that I couldn't afford as is, I'd be going down to the Apple Store to pick up an Intel Mac today.
Bring on WWDC2006 for the Intel Power Macs (possibly "Mac Pro") and all the fun new Leopard features!
Vista isn't even out yet, and it already looks old.
Comments
AFAIK, the video part works, but not the Audio..
*grrrrrrrr*
Originally posted by Jleon
Someone needs to be devil's advocate here:
A 150% price increase is still a very good reason not to switch for most Windows users. If I was Bill Gates I'd be popping open the champaign right now, their 95% market share will get closer to 100%, with 5% having both OS's.
And how are those Apple mice going to work with Windows XP, anyway?
Unless Bill's illiterate, I suspect he'll be popping open the champagne rather than the champaign.
This is a risky game for Apple - on the one hand a lot of people will buy Macs, knowing that they can run that essential Windows only app occasionally, and eventually loving OSX so much that they barely use Windows (I can think of some friends in this category).
On the other hand, lazy developers now have an excuse to develop just for Windows. Fingers crossed that doesn't happen. It wouldn't bother me hugely as I rely on very few third party apps (Office, Messenger and Photoshop Elements are the only major non-Apple apps I have), but if too many developers get lazy, it is a dangerous scenario.
Originally posted by lundy
Next on the agenda: Cocoa for Windows, in Xcode. All developers can move to Xcode and have a single codebase for the entire market. As the Mac market share skyrockets, developers will have more and more reason to do this. Cocoa already has objects and methods to do everything you can imagine, and all Apple has to do is change the internals of the frameworks so that they call into Windows dlls instead of Mac OS X frameworks. If Mac hardware sales get to, let's say 15% of the market, then some developers will move to Xcode to take advantage of that revenue stream, and others will follow.
Woah. Slow down there cowboy! While that sounds great, making XCode cross platform would be a mammoth undertaking. Plus, Apple want to create a nice developer environment so that the Mac gets loads of cool apps which makes the Mac a more attractive platform for users which means more Mac sales. If Apple were to make XCode cross platform, there would be less of a reason for current Windows users to switch. They could have their cake and eat it by running Windows on a cheap Dell and using iLife.
You'd never know though. 'hell is freezing over' seems to be an obligatory phrase with every bit of Apple news lately.
Originally posted by ZO
I'd REALLY like to see drivers for that damn iSight camera for Windows..
AFAIK, the video part works, but not the Audio..
*grrrrrrrr*
Steve needs a couple of reasons for you to buy Leopard.
I'm sure someone will sort it out soon, though.
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
I believe there are ways to take the SP2 download and your original XP disc and merge the two onto a new CD-R so you start with an XP/SP2 install. I believe the term you want to search on is "slipstream". That's what I've heard it called.
[edit]
Here's a step by step instruction on slipstreaming XP + SP2:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...slipstream.asp
Well, you just had to go and blow that excuse for me. Thanks! Wonder if it'll work with my XP ugrade (from NT) disks. Getting another mini is still a few months off for me though, the one I have isn't even a year old. What I really just need to do is finish migrating my old data over to Mac applications and formats.
That said, the average Windows user isn't going to be able to go do this.
Originally posted by pmjoe
Well, this is pretty useless, neither of the XP licenses/disks I have are Service Pack 2 based. This might have helped me decide to get an Intel Mac mini sooner, so I could get rid of the aging PC I keep around for Windows stuff. I'm not going to buy another copy of Windows just to do it though.
Since this is probably true for most anyone with a system older than a couple years, this doesn't seem like that useful of an approach. Apple ought to be aiming for people with aging XP systems as a way to get them over to Mac OS. People with newer copies of XP probably aren't the ones who will go out and buy a Mac just to run XP on it.
I haven't read all of the many pages of comments about Boot Camp, but in case no one else has answered your question:
http://www.nliteos.com/nlite.html
That's a free app which lets you roll your own XP cd's from a master, you can add service packs straight from the freely available .exe M$ provide. Also good for overriding various Windows settings before its even installed ... though I personally would play it safe as I don't know how Boot Camp would like many of those changed.
Anyway, SP2 for all.
Good luck with the Mini.
Originally posted by pmjoe
Well, you just had to go and blow that excuse for me. Thanks! Wonder if it'll work with my XP ugrade (from NT) disks. Getting another mini is still a few months off for me though, the one I have isn't even a year old. What I really just need to do is finish migrating my old data over to Mac applications and formats.
That said, the average Windows user isn't going to be able to go do this.
I doubt this will work with XP Upgrade discs. You'll need a full install disc in order to slipstream. Apple's BootCamp page also says XP upgrade discs won't work.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Mac only has 4% of the market (nothing compared to windows), and they have a fantastic developer base! Clearly the developers don't see an advantage to writing for windows.
Apple works very hard to make all of their apps feel the same. It's part of a good UI - make everything work the same so the user develops a sense of trust and intuition about how the system behaves. Drop Windows applications in unchanged - with their window-attached toolbars and differently arranged menus - and the experience will go to hell.
We've seen it happen already - people love to complain about how X Windows applications feel out of place on OSX. I think there were only two reasons Apple included X Windows functionality. First, it meant that they had a load of applications, right off the bat, that were fairly simple to port to OSX. Second, having a known, standard technology that is popular among the university crowd was a great draw for early adopters, who tend to be from the university crowd. I know some will say that these two points apply perfectly to Windows apps as well, but I think there is a difference.
The difference is that people who wanted to run X Windows apps on OSX were used to inconsistent interfaces. They expected every single X app to behave [sometimes completely] differently. So, mucking their UI was no big deal. Your average Windows user, OTOH doesn't put up with near as much. I'll say that the Windows interface is not nearly as consistent as OSX's, but it is definitely more consistent than X Windows. Just letting any old Windows program pop up a window on an OSX desktop will confuse the average user. (And if Apple advertises that it's possible, many average users will want to do it whether they need to or not.) They won't understand why this one app looks totally different than their others.
So, after that whole rant, I'd like to say that if Apple does provide the ability to run Windows apps without a reboot, I think we'll see something like a fast user switch to a Windows desktop that you can start in the background. Only there will you be able to launch and use Windows apps - keeping the visuals separate. There may be some nice cut&paste mechanism for getting data back and forth, but there will still be a line drawn somewhere.
My $0.02,
CrazyWingman
*Yes, I know, we can all point out several places where OSX is already inconsistent, but I'd consider those places meaningless in comparison to Windows apps in OSX.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Apple's challenge is/was/will-continue-to-be making OS X compelling enough to develop for and having truly compelling applications for it.
....
This is a potentially risky move. But without great risk, there is rarely great reward. This is a calculate gamble on their part. Probably a smart one. [/B]
I read someone post yesterday about the Yellow Box (i.e. running Apple apps on Windows machines). Now, imagine if Apple were to allow xCode to compile for both OS X and an installed Yellow Box on Windows. This would allow most software to be given the choice of running on either OS.
Does this mean that all Apple's apps would run on Windows? No, because they would want people to buy a Mac to run them (so they would not compile it for Yellow Box Windows). It would however allow develpers to write once and run on both OS X and Windows , if they wanted to.
Why would developers want to do this? Because OS X has some very nice features like Core Image/Audio/Data that make programs much easier to write. Apple would control more software that was written for OS X and Windows.
Originally posted by graf
The key word there is "retail". An OEM copy of XP Home is £75 ish.
How do you officially 'buy' an OEM version? By definition those aren't supposed to be for sale.
someone will write a virus that erases the osx partition from within
your windows installation.
//paranoia mode off
the guys at apple should spend more time on existing customers and
bring all their pro apps, fix the finder bla bla etc... instead of catching more and more new customers.
go go go
Originally posted by G_Warren
Unless Bill's illiterate, I suspect he'll be popping open the champagne rather than the champaign.
This is a risky game for Apple - on the one hand a lot of people will buy Macs, knowing that they can run that essential Windows only app occasionally, and eventually loving OSX so much that they barely use Windows (I can think of some friends in this category).
On the other hand, lazy developers now have an excuse to develop just for Windows. Fingers crossed that doesn't happen. It wouldn't bother me hugely as I rely on very few third party apps (Office, Messenger and Photoshop Elements are the only major non-Apple apps I have), but if too many developers get lazy, it is a dangerous scenario.
I didn't think typos were anything to take "hugely."
It's not a matter of laziness, its a matter of the bottom line. Developers aren't in the business of providing charity to OS's. That being said, I agree that in the end, OSX may prove to be preferable to many when they get to have both. I think this will especially help Apple in the corporate and education markets too.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
How do you officially 'buy' an OEM version? By definition those aren't supposed to be for sale.
Actually, by definition, OEM versions are legally allowed for sale as long as computer hardware is on the same purchase. It's part of the MS contract.
Originally posted by pmjoe
Well, this is pretty useless, neither of the XP licenses/disks I have are Service Pack 2 based. This might have helped me decide to get an Intel Mac mini sooner, so I could get rid of the aging PC I keep around for Windows stuff. I'm not going to buy another copy of Windows just to do it though.
Since this is probably true for most anyone with a system older than a couple years, this doesn't seem like that useful of an approach. Apple ought to be aiming for people with aging XP systems as a way to get them over to Mac OS. People with newer copies of XP probably aren't the ones who will go out and buy a Mac just to run XP on it.
you could take your xp disk and slipstream it with sp2
Originally posted by Jleon
A 150% price increase is still a very good reason not to switch for most Windows users. If I was Bill Gates I'd be popping open the champaign right now, their 95% market share will get closer to 100%, with 5% having both OS's.
And how are those Apple mice going to work with Windows XP, anyway?
Welcome to the 21st century where Intel Macs ship with multi-button mice and Apple computers are actually about the same price as any other quality brand.
Sure, they aren't e-machines level of cheap, but it shows. Any consumer can spot that.
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
Actually, by definition, OEM versions are legally allowed for sale as long as computer hardware is on the same purchase. It's part of the MS contract.
Cool, so I have to buy another computer to get my cheap copy of XP?
Wait a moment...
It's Windows but...with an 'X' in the center...so it's Mac...and Windows...but...MACIFIED!
AHH!
Anyways, this is great news. And if I didn't just buy a new camera that I couldn't afford as is, I'd be going down to the Apple Store to pick up an Intel Mac today.
Bring on WWDC2006 for the Intel Power Macs (possibly "Mac Pro") and all the fun new Leopard features!
Vista isn't even out yet, and it already looks old.