And Speaking of Things Michael Dell Said About Apple

Couldn't agree more. I keep looking at the form factor of the Mac Mini and wondering why PC manufacturers can't make something similarly small. Then you could stack 'em and use a 'keyboard, video, mouse' (KVM) switch to have a single set of peripherals between the two. I have that basic configuration in both my offices, but while I can shrink down my Mac, every PC worth running seems to be at least the size of three shoeboxes (and I have big feet! :-)

What I really want - and have been writing about for a few months now - is a Tablet Mac. But that's another story...

Welcome to the business blogging community, too, gentlemen. Glad to have you aboard!

nice article, keep going.

Although a seductive feature, dual boot mac systems will never exist. If they did it would mean the death of OS X. The vast majority of developers, especially the major ones would just develop for Windows and ignore OS X. It's happened before. Remember os/2? It could run Windows programs. They were never able to get developers excited about os/2 so it quickly became a footnote. OS X has a great community of developers, besides Windows is hideous no one "wants" it unless they "need" it.

Currently, you can do dual-boot MacOS/Linux systems and dual-boot Windows/Linux systems. Sooo ... just start migrating everything to Linux.

I'm with Ben on this one... don't you start putting windows on my mac. I like my OS X environment, hate the XP one...
But one question? How will viruses on PC affect a Mac running both OS?

Ben, while that's a risk, I'd be surprised if that's what will happen. You said it yourself, most mac users don't want windows on their machine. That alone I think will keep developers making software for the mac. The fact that the enthusiasts and geeks can find a way to load windows on their mac, and do a dual boot, that's a good thing that they're given that open. Phil Shiller, an Apple VP, said that Apple wouldn't actively prevent people from installing windows on their intel macs. I'll be interested to see what happens to virtual pc, when intel macs start rolling in. I'd like to know if it runs well since it won't have to do the processor emulation.

Dave,

Looks like AOpen is releasing a Windows MacMini equivalent called the MiniPC this month:
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000820066107/

I have two Macs running different versions of Mac OS and bootable versions of Linux on them. I also have been running Virtual PC on my Macs for many years, Windows 98, and XP versions. I like having the ability to use a variety of operating systems and frankly, Virtual PC is a great option. I have not found a Windows application that will not run in this software. I even used it to create a ColdFusion Server (back in the day when Allaire still owned this product) so I could generate web based applications and it worked very well.

That said, I have never wanted my Mac OS to go away. I love the way it works with graphics and music software and would not trade it for Windows. I also like the way it does not have the security issues, hacks, and viruses that Windows seems to be plagued with. Not sure that if most PC users started using Mac OS X that they would not prefer it to Windows.

Now if Apple would just make it easy to put their OS on Intel machines and not make it difficult for the end user to purchase, install, and use the operating system, I would be happy. I would also be happy if software developers would realize that a more stable OS for their products would be a good thing and support Apple with this migration from chipsets. A world with real competition and a viable option to Microsoft would be wonderful and Mac OS X and its UNIX parentage would have a good chance at giving real selection to PC users for a change. Not that Windows would have to go away but maybe they would try to actually fix some of their problems before they issue new versions of their operating systems.

Its funny those of us in my IT department at work are awaiting the intel ibooks / powerbooks with baited breath.

Given the demise of IBM there isnt a single reliable notebook manufacturer left; apples notebooks so far has a fantastic reputation for reliability (bar the batteries) and so we will switch to apple; then format and install windows - without OS/X.

Thank god I'm a musician and designer who has no need to wander around the Window world.

I completely disagree with you on this, Ben. People have options already - you could buy a PC or a Mac for roughly the same price. The fact that Apple sells millions of Macs isn't because people can't get a PC, but because they want what the Mac has to offer. Moving from two boxes to a single box with the same basic choice isn't going to change that. It's like VirtualPC: people who have a dual-boot Mac/PC will run on the Mac side as much as possible (after all, they *didn't* buy a PC) and switch to Windows on an as-needed basis.

Arik - have you tried Virtual PC? This is an app which allows you to install and run Windows and Windows apps on your Mac - it is better than dual boot in that you can run the two OSes simultaneously and copy and paste between the two.

On the other hand Virtual PC does have performance issues.

Can't believe you missed the obvious idea -- about six months after the last PPC Mac leaves the Apple store, a PCI Express card with a G4 on it so people can continue to run OS 9 applications. Who cares about Windows? Virtual PC for Intel will cover that market just fine, and should run about five times faster under Intel to boot.

From what I understand based on comments from Phil Schiller, Apple is not going to go out of their way to not allow Windows to boot on a Mac. However, they are not going to go out of their way to encourage it, either.

As I understand it, Apple is planning on dropping Open Firmware for something else. If that something else can boot Windows, great. If Windows supports whatever hardware is inside a Mac, great. But, for example, if Apple were to create their own, say, hardware audio controller, it wouldn't be supported in Windows and Apple will not go out of their way to write a Windows driver to support it.

Also, dollars-to-donuts, you won't be able to go to the Apple Store and buy a Mac with Windows and Mac OS X. So you'll have to go buy a Mac, go buy Windows, repartition your hard drives and reformat one partition as HFS and another as FAT/NTFS, reinstall Mac OS X on one partition, install Windows on the other partition, conceivably download any drivers that Windows does not include, and you'll be ready to go.

In short, it will take more work than most people are willing to invest to get Windows running on their Macs.

what may be interesting..is that by moving to this large intel based platform, WINE (windows not emulation) already developed for unix (web search DARWINE and WINE) will hopefully be INCLUDED with Leopard, allowing winblows apps to run on top of the winblows API's just fine WITHOUT the need to install or buy the current version of Windows OS; someone out there certainly is more knowledgeable than i about this - but man that seems like the best option for the few ...very few, windows apps that i must at times soil myself with:
comments please

greg

I still foresee a market for Virtual PC on the Intel Mac by making for the consumer a painless way to get Windows running on their Mac without risky, confusing, and very un-Mac-like hacking to do.

I well understand your point about desiring a machine that can run both Mac OS and Windows natively. I feel a lot of people want this. And I honestly think this is both Apple's goal and strategy. But in the interest of doing good business, to advertise that this is your intentions is not something you'd want to scream from the mountaintops and give all your competitors a headsup on what you're planning to do. Therefore I can well understand why Apple is downplaying the idea of supporting Windows natively - simply because it doesn't want to give Microsoft a heads-up on what it's planning. I honestly wish most analyst would stop bugging Apple about doing stupid things. And for Apple to admit such and let all it's competitors know in advance that it plans to offer hi-performance dual boot machines would be just plain stupid. Steve Jobs is smarter than that, that's why he's mum on the idea. And frankly I totally agree with him. So please leave Apple alone in that regard.

I don't think this has been mentioned anywhere, but I could definitely see Apple supporting Windows running WITHIN OSX, like Virtual PC. The performance would be just as good as dual boot, you would be able to copy and paste between the two OSs, BUT you would always have the parent of OSX to start and end the day within. They could call the app "WindowWell" and it could be that dark little hole where Windows resides for when you need it. Then climb out and see the light.

It's not important that the machine "run Windows". It's important that it "runs Windows Applications". No one here is talking about having sleek Mac hardware, and the gummed up Vista/XP interface, more exposure to worms and virii, etc. What people are talking about is running Win-only business apps, and perhaps the occasional non-3d game, or wacky Windows-DRM media format.

And, of course, we don't want huge slowdowns like we get with Virtual PC's emulation of the Intel chipset.

So, for us, there is another option: Crossover Office (http://codewaevers.com). Currently running on Linux, it is capable of running Windows apps at near-native speed on an x86 (and eating ALL your RAM doing it)... And they've pledged to make the move to MacIntel (with a few open-source initiatives cooperating or breathing down their necks).

I think that will make everyone happiest - no need to reboot to get Win apps, and no capability of having the uber-Virus take down your whole machine when you happen to be running those Win apps.

Anyway, repartitioning be damned!

I really hope that Apples move to Intel chips brings an end to the Virtual PC era and fosters more development on the WINE front. I run all 3 operating systems in question and use them all on a daily basis. Linux is by far my favorite, but I am a hardcore geek. I have a Power Mac at home that my wife and I both love for our personal computing needs. I have also eliminated as many Windows machines as possible at my office, as well as switching many of my users over to OS X (ssh tunneling to a terminal server is far better than Virtual PC). That being said, there are a few apps, made by very shortsighted and intellectually inferior companies, that require windows to run. A robust, fast and easy to use Windows API for operating systems other than Windows running on x86 platforms would be a huge nail in the coffin of Micro$oft. I for one welcome our new Apple overlords, and pledge my allegiance to them as long as they promise to contribute to WINE.

Windows NT4, as I recall seeing at the local Apple dealers when NT4 was around, ran on PowerPC without any troubles. Of course, you had to have the PPC editions of other software, also, but Windows has dual booted on Macs in the past.

hi i am a windows user... yeah! unfortunately. i have been thinkin of buying a mac. but ever since the announcement of intel mac, my joy knew no bounds. but i still would have 2 work in windows environment. so to think having windows boot option is a good one for windows users who want mac in their pcs, but r forced 2 work in windows environment. besides, this wud only increase the popularity of Apple, n cud well spell Doom for windows sooner!

I wouldn't worry about Apple dying just because its machines boot Windows. The company I work for buys laptops galore, and runs Windows on the vast majority of them: if Apple laptops are verifiably able to run Windows, we may well end up buying them and slapping Windows on them, instead of buying Dell, IBM, Fujitsu, or HP (just some of the vendors we've tried). The support can't be much WORSE even for Windows (given that I only call them for hardware support, and handle all the software stuff myself) and the hardware quality is simply beyond comparison: our average failure rate has yet to be determined on our Macs, because none of them have failed yet, including the stuff so old it won't even run 10.4.

(Actually the HP stuff we have isn't bad, but they don't have a model that makes sense for our company any more.)

I am salivating at the ability to buy a PowerBook running OS-X and having a dual-boot Windows XP Pro system as well.

In my line of work I am required to run Windows applications. The Virtual PC program will barely suffice - hence I'm relegated to using a sub-par brick of a Dell laptop when I go to client sites.

Also spending evenings in hotels requires some kind of outlet for which mine is computer games. Most windows games won't run under the VPC.

Apple - if you make a computer that doesn't block dual boot OS you will receive another lifetime customer. Why can't Dell take a hint and build sleek, thin machines? Some of us will pay a premium for a good machine.

I am a PC user, and have been my whole life. I have been wanting a Mac for some years now, but the price has held me off. It's not because they are expensive, but I want to have the ability to go play HL2 and many other games, whenever I want to, and the Mac can't offer that, well untill now offcourse :) I'm definetly going to buy the first (ok, maybe not he first, look at the Xbox 360 buyers with all their first buyer problems) iBook/Powerbook with Intel processors in it, as soon as they arrive. The dream of a machine, capable of running all OS'es, makes my belly tickle.
Just imagine having the freedom of OS X, while still be able to boot up in windows, just for a little online gaming. Or even better as Deanypop mentioned, having Crossover Office capable of running the games for Win, but in OS X.
Another thing that is interesting, is that Apple so far, hasn't done any significant barriers for AMD processors. Makes me relax, and not worry about them having made a big mistake with a Intel deal and thereby closing AMD out. What irritates me though, is that they (Apple) only will ship Macs with Intels, and not have the option for a AMD available...but that's maybe the deal between those two companies.

Well, the last post was almost 2 years ago. 2 years is a very long time in the computing world. Having read all of the above its clear to me what people want (or wanted). A computer with the flexibility of Mac OS X and the applications of Windows, without all the security issues of Windows. Having done a lot of research on the vast opinion based argument of what is better, mac or PC, i have come to my conclusion. That is mac. Now in 2007, it is possible to run, what is the best operating system (my opinion), mac OS X with all Windows applications using software such as parallels or crossover (crossover was mentioned above with the thought of it coming onto Intel macs). I am currently on a PC running Windows XP which i bought about 6 months ago, at the time i wouldn't have considered anything different. My next computer will be a Mac and unless anything changes, i don't think i will be going back. Everyone i know who uses OS X seems to be satisfied and everyone using Windows Vista seems to be unsatisfied. There is a lot of evidence that Windows Vista is a failed attempt to copy OS X. Is Windows Vista a closing chapter of the Microsoft operating system domination?

I don't know how I stumbled upon this thread but it's amazing to me that we're still having this conversation 23 years after the Mac was introduced. (and I have to pinch myself that I've been using one for that length of time!). I do "tech support" for three Windows users in my home. The discussion goes beyond technology preferences. It's as fundamental as "how people think." Whenever I use the Windows machine, I have to "think like Windows" - which means that I was back in a world where I was expected to know about Active X controls and Windows Explorer. By contrast, when I bought my Powerbook in 2004, I opened the lid and it asked me how I connected to the Internet (wireless to router, then via cable modem). That was all I needed to do, and from there, it automagically worked. Since then, the computer has crashed

Just stumbled across this site doing a search for my old comments, mostly out of curiosity.

Turns out I was right, though, above. My company now has fifteen Macs running Mac OS X and Windows (via Parallels and/or dual boot) and half a dozen Macs running just Windows. They make great Windows machines, and given the way we license Windows they cost about the same as an equivalent Lenovo. (More than a Dell, but then, they also fail literally 1/3 to 1/5 as often.)

-fred