Wow, this is absolutely incredible. Combine this with reports that the Mac Mini and iMac processors are upgradeable, and I just got switched back to Mac.
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..
Well, to an extent, they already started that process.
You can develop apps in xCode using the Core Foundation 'Lite' framework which provides the low level classes for complete cross platform development across MacOSX, Linux and Windows.
I don't think they'll go as far as putting full Core Audio/Video Quartz etc on Windows or Linux but who knows what they'll do next on the fairground ride that is Apple.
So are we going to have to reburn our driver CD every time Apple decides to update Graphics Networking Audio AirPort wireless Bluetooth The Eject key (on Apple keyboards) Brightness control for built-in displays
I like the idea, but I think Boot Camp is going to be even more than we expect, it will probably be the ground work for virtulisation that will allow Windows to run in Mac OSX.
My MBP was ordered today, I will wait and see how this whole BootCamp goes before I rush out and buy a XP installation
Frankly, being able to run .exe files in Mac OS X is less interesting to me than just being able to boot Windows. Just seems cleaner and I sure as well want Windows away from my Mac files.
As a PC user of many years this is the beginning of what it will take to talk me into switching.
Virtualisation is what I'm waiting for. Once I can run 3DS Max from within OSX, I'll be joining you guys in Apple land.
If you're a PC user, why are you surfing APPLEINSIDER? I believe the curiosity surrounding Apple's ever infamous reputation of being the most innovative developer around may have something to do with it, no?
MS still gets paid for (legal) copies of Windows being used with BootCamp.
For many people (like me), rebooting just to run one app is a lot of overhead I'd like to avoid.
Give me VPC any day over BootCamp, for just quickly running a statistics package to get a result to add to a paper I'm writing in TeXShop, for instance.
Different problems, different solutions... and MS makes money off of both.
Although I think this is a good move to get people to switch, I am also worried about the effect on developers that go kicking and screaming when bringing their apps to MacOS. They now have one more reason not to bother.
Case in point: The US government is moving to electronic submission of grant applications (NIH etc). Currently, the software needed to do this is PC only. For all the Mac users, we were told to get Virtual PC or use something called Citrix. The company is working on a Mac version, and their lack of a Mac version has contributed to a delay in rolling out the electronic submission system, but the point is that Mac users were initialy put way back in the back of the line for a very mission-critical piece of software.
Switching your OS is great to be able to access a PC game or something, but I want all my daily software that I need to interact to get something done under one OS. The desktop metaphor applies: Can you imagine have two desks in two offices with half your work in one place and the other half in the other? I really hope that Apple and screaming Mac users don't let certain developers get aways with not supporting MacOS becuase we now have another option.
VPC is virtualization. Running two OS simultaneously. Dual Booting is giving you the choice of running one OS.
Virtualization is key to Apple and every computer manufacturer's future.
That may be, but I will bet you will see an announcement on the ending of further development of VPC for Mac. Case in point, the almost silence of MS on the fate of VPC since the announcement of the switch to Intel.
I realize it's not an issue for people going forward, but there are still a fair number of PPC-based Macs. Microsoft dropping VPC for Mac is not a good thing for these people.
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.
The the user doesn;t uderstand why they look different, they why are they using a computer? Monkeys can probably dicern the difference between WINDOWS and OSX apps. Yes, monkeys. Remember, they also eat their own poo.
The announcement today made a sound...It was the firing of a starter's gun.
The race has begun.
EVERYONE is right, this could be a brilliant move to lure switchers and increase Mac market share - OR - it could lead to the death of OSX as anything more than a home for iLife, as developers abandon the platform in favor of the ubiquitous Windows juggernaut...
The answer as to which outcome it will be is dependent upon the pace of the race. If Apple can get enough 'switchers' on board to boast that this move is significantly increasing market share, then they can convince developers that OSX native versions are in their best interests (the future). In fact, they may even convince some that OSX-ONLY versions are worthwhile (draw people toward the future). After all, most users will quickly discover that OSX is simply a more pleasant environment.
On the other hand, if this doesn't improve Mac sales and it appears that a high number of MacIntel users are running Windows, developers will quickly determine that they can reach Mac users without an OSX native version.
How does Apple control the race?
1. Launch new products and 'inflate' sales figures (to swithcers) to demonstrate real growth.
2. Develop virtualization mode, so that should developers abandon OSX-native apps Apple and OSX can survive (and prosper) as a fully-compatible alternative to Windows. Same applications, different look.
Whether Apple can accomplish these goals before the tide turns against them is the big question. It's clear, however, that an ALL or NOTHING partitioned Windows solution is enticing but not in the best interests of the Mac platform.
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.
Hugely works. Apple's dictionary says so, so it must be right!
Actually, it's the best solution, and on more thought, I don't think we'll see anything really better from Apple in 10.5, certainly not virtualization.
Why?
This is *a migration path*, nothing more.
Notice that the Mac side can *read* NTFS, *but not write*. All data goes Windows -> Mac.
Notice that the Mac can write to FAT32, and data can be shared that way with Windows, but it's really not the best solution. Also requires some more work to set up that filespace.
Notice that the Windows side can't read or write HFS+.
Net result? Windows -> Mac for data. This isn't for flipping back and forth, this is for getting Windows users who simply feel they can't do without, on board as Mac users. Then they start moving stuff over on their own schedule. Then they stop booting Windows.
Full virtualization would mean a seamless environment, and then you get into the 'what will devs write to?' issue. This sidesteps that neatly.
Did anyone else notice that in the installer, it doesn't erase all your data to repartition the hard drive? Perhaps this signals another new feature of Leapord!?
I like the live repartitioning. The opensource solution wasn't as elegant and required a reformat to partition. Losing your data or requiring a backup is a deal breaker for most users I'd think.
Anyone know if Apple's patched copy of XP includes an HFS+ driver? While it would be handy to grab files off your OS X partition, its also nice having it inaccessible since you know that some Windows worm can't hose your important stuff.
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).
[/B]
Not too much of a risky game. If Apple hadn't done it someone else would have. At least by Apple doing it they have a chance of winning some good will points.
Apple is a hardware manufacturer above all, even if they do have one of the nicest OSs out there, IMHO.
How about someone actually installing Boot Camp and XP instead of talking about it - I am not wanting to be an early adopter until other folk go first.
Comments
Say "Goodbye" to Microsoft Virtual PC for Mac.
Originally posted by dr_gonzo
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..
Well, to an extent, they already started that process.
You can develop apps in xCode using the Core Foundation 'Lite' framework which provides the low level classes for complete cross platform development across MacOSX, Linux and Windows.
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/cflite.html
I don't think they'll go as far as putting full Core Audio/Video Quartz etc on Windows or Linux but who knows what they'll do next on the fairground ride that is Apple.
Originally posted by wgauvin
So are we going to have to reburn our driver CD every time Apple decides to update Graphics
Networking
Audio
AirPort wireless
Bluetooth
The Eject key (on Apple keyboards)
Brightness control for built-in displays
I like the idea, but I think Boot Camp is going to be even more than we expect, it will probably be the ground work for virtulisation that will allow Windows to run in Mac OSX.
My MBP was ordered today, I will wait and see how this whole BootCamp goes before I rush out and buy a XP installation
Only if you buy a new computer.
Otherwise, you could probably download updates.
Originally posted by Ireland
This topic is hot! Hell it's on fire! Digg is gone crazy for this shit!
It's like being here after a keynote...WITHOUT a keynote!
I don't recall who wrote it today, but someone said that this is the shot heard 'round the technology world. I agree.
If this is what Apple can do with a beta, Leopard is going to be unlike any Mac OS we've seen.
I'm excited. This is the most excited I've been about Macs for quite a while. Now I must go soak in the irony....
Originally posted by kotatsu
As a PC user of many years this is the beginning of what it will take to talk me into switching.
Virtualisation is what I'm waiting for. Once I can run 3DS Max from within OSX, I'll be joining you guys in Apple land.
If you're a PC user, why are you surfing APPLEINSIDER? I believe the curiosity surrounding Apple's ever infamous reputation of being the most innovative developer around may have something to do with it, no?
Originally posted by initiator
You guys know what this means don't you?
Say "Goodbye" to Microsoft Virtual PC for Mac.
Why?
MS still gets paid for (legal) copies of Windows being used with BootCamp.
For many people (like me), rebooting just to run one app is a lot of overhead I'd like to avoid.
Give me VPC any day over BootCamp, for just quickly running a statistics package to get a result to add to a paper I'm writing in TeXShop, for instance.
Different problems, different solutions... and MS makes money off of both.
Case in point: The US government is moving to electronic submission of grant applications (NIH etc). Currently, the software needed to do this is PC only. For all the Mac users, we were told to get Virtual PC or use something called Citrix. The company is working on a Mac version, and their lack of a Mac version has contributed to a delay in rolling out the electronic submission system, but the point is that Mac users were initialy put way back in the back of the line for a very mission-critical piece of software.
Switching your OS is great to be able to access a PC game or something, but I want all my daily software that I need to interact to get something done under one OS. The desktop metaphor applies: Can you imagine have two desks in two offices with half your work in one place and the other half in the other? I really hope that Apple and screaming Mac users don't let certain developers get aways with not supporting MacOS becuase we now have another option.
Originally posted by initiator
You guys know what this means don't you?
Say "Goodbye" to Microsoft Virtual PC for Mac.
Two different products.
VPC is virtualization. Running two OS simultaneously. Dual Booting is giving you the choice of running one OS.
Virtualization is key to Apple and every computer manufacturer's future.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Two different products.
VPC is virtualization. Running two OS simultaneously. Dual Booting is giving you the choice of running one OS.
Virtualization is key to Apple and every computer manufacturer's future.
That may be, but I will bet you will see an announcement on the ending of further development of VPC for Mac. Case in point, the almost silence of MS on the fate of VPC since the announcement of the switch to Intel.
I realize it's not an issue for people going forward, but there are still a fair number of PPC-based Macs. Microsoft dropping VPC for Mac is not a good thing for these people.
Originally posted by CrazyWingman
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.
The the user doesn;t uderstand why they look different, they why are they using a computer? Monkeys can probably dicern the difference between WINDOWS and OSX apps. Yes, monkeys. Remember, they also eat their own poo.
The race has begun.
EVERYONE is right, this could be a brilliant move to lure switchers and increase Mac market share - OR - it could lead to the death of OSX as anything more than a home for iLife, as developers abandon the platform in favor of the ubiquitous Windows juggernaut...
The answer as to which outcome it will be is dependent upon the pace of the race. If Apple can get enough 'switchers' on board to boast that this move is significantly increasing market share, then they can convince developers that OSX native versions are in their best interests (the future). In fact, they may even convince some that OSX-ONLY versions are worthwhile (draw people toward the future). After all, most users will quickly discover that OSX is simply a more pleasant environment.
On the other hand, if this doesn't improve Mac sales and it appears that a high number of MacIntel users are running Windows, developers will quickly determine that they can reach Mac users without an OSX native version.
How does Apple control the race?
1. Launch new products and 'inflate' sales figures (to swithcers) to demonstrate real growth.
2. Develop virtualization mode, so that should developers abandon OSX-native apps Apple and OSX can survive (and prosper) as a fully-compatible alternative to Windows. Same applications, different look.
Whether Apple can accomplish these goals before the tide turns against them is the big question. It's clear, however, that an ALL or NOTHING partitioned Windows solution is enticing but not in the best interests of the Mac platform.
Originally posted by Jleon
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.
Hugely works. Apple's dictionary says so, so it must be right!
Why?
This is *a migration path*, nothing more.
Notice that the Mac side can *read* NTFS, *but not write*. All data goes Windows -> Mac.
Notice that the Mac can write to FAT32, and data can be shared that way with Windows, but it's really not the best solution. Also requires some more work to set up that filespace.
Notice that the Windows side can't read or write HFS+.
Net result? Windows -> Mac for data. This isn't for flipping back and forth, this is for getting Windows users who simply feel they can't do without, on board as Mac users. Then they start moving stuff over on their own schedule. Then they stop booting Windows.
Full virtualization would mean a seamless environment, and then you get into the 'what will devs write to?' issue. This sidesteps that neatly.
Originally posted by andrewcod
Did anyone else notice that in the installer, it doesn't erase all your data to repartition the hard drive? Perhaps this signals another new feature of Leapord!?
I like the live repartitioning. The opensource solution wasn't as elegant and required a reformat to partition. Losing your data or requiring a backup is a deal breaker for most users I'd think.
Anyone know if Apple's patched copy of XP includes an HFS+ driver? While it would be handy to grab files off your OS X partition, its also nice having it inaccessible since you know that some Windows worm can't hose your important stuff.
Originally posted by G_Warren
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).
[/B]
Not too much of a risky game. If Apple hadn't done it someone else would have. At least by Apple doing it they have a chance of winning some good will points.
Apple is a hardware manufacturer above all, even if they do have one of the nicest OSs out there, IMHO.