News about Apple/Windows XP

[John_Cillis 2,406]

If you can't beat 'em....http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/ptech/04/05/a...e.ap/index.html

[tf51d 284]

>If you can't beat 'em....>>http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/ptech/04/05/a...e.ap/index.html>>That's interesting. I wonder if the reverse is true. Since Mac OS now runs on an Intel platform, can Microsoft write a software utility allowing PC's to run Mac OS?

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"That's interesting. I wonder if the reverse is true. Since Mac OS now runs on an Intel platform, can Microsoft write a software utility allowing PC's to run Mac OS?"In the article it mentions that Apple won't allow this, even to the point of contacting hacker sites and "instructing" them to remove links on how to run the Mac OS.-John

[tf51d 284]

>"That's interesting. I wonder if the reverse is true. Since>Mac OS now runs on an Intel platform, can Microsoft write a>software utility allowing PC's to run Mac OS?">>In the article it mentions that Apple won't allow this, even>to the point of contacting hacker sites and "instructing" them>to remove links on how to run the Mac OS.>>-JohnHey! What's good for the goose is good for the gander! If Apple can do it against MS. I'm sure MS can wage a good court battle against them if they stop them from doing it if they so desired! I won't be surprised if their lawyers are preparing thier legal briefs now!!:)

[greggerm 312]

>Hey! What's good for the goose is good for the gander! If>Apple can do it against MS. I'm sure MS can wage a good court>battle against them if they stop them from doing it if they so>desired!Nobody is going "against" anyone with this revelation...Microsoft doesn't control the hardware platform used to build Windows PC's... they have no control over what can go on them or off them - all they could do is write a line in the EULA saying that running the OS on a non-approved hardware platform is against the license... but what a can of worms that would open up in the industry. Apple, however, DOES have control over their hardware and can by rights design it to only run authorized software. MS isn't going to *lose* any customers to this. If anything, they will only gain! Apple isn't infringing on Microsoft's rights; they are actually ENABLING Microsoft to come play in their once private playground of propriatary hardware. If Apple were to allow their software to operate on a hardware platform originally built for Windows (eg: a Dell or Gateway), they lose a cornerstone of their business model - heavy control over hardware to insure compatability. Part of Apple's core philosophy has always been to keep control over hardware to prevent all the problems us Intel/AMD'ers see when you have hundreds of thousands of different hardware combinations. It hasn't been flawless, but it has worked remarkably well over the years. We could question the logic of Apple's benefit to opening their comptuers to a competitor's operating system. I think it will be a win:win for all parties. Apple's users get a more ubiquitious operating system to run games at their desktops, and Microsoft gets a few more license purchases AND a whole new segment of computer to market to. We'll see!-Greg

[Guest Derek D]

I must confess I am puzzled by the purpose of running Windows XP on a Mac--although that statement is a bit misleadling--because when someone refers to a "Mac", they are most likely refering to the OS, not the fancy sculpted plastic case which houses the OS. So basically when you say you are running Windows XP on a Mac, you simply have a PC with a fancy computer case and monitor running Windows XP. There is nothing "Mac" about it.Although I suppose the feature that Apple is trying to emphasize is the ability to choose between booting up in the Mac OS or the Windows OS, all this really shows is that Apple is piggybacking on another company's OS to provide features that they were unable to incorporate into their own OS--specifically, widespread software support. I don't think most users would appreciate the "convenience" of having to boot up Windows XP to run software, and then booting up the Mac OS to perform file management or whatever you use Macs for.I say if you are a diehard Mac fan, then just keep using it the way you've already been using it; but if you are dependent on Windows to run most of your software, then there is really no reason to go through this added complication of "running Windows on a Mac".

[Guest]

wow, so they basically admit they lost... took em long enough though

[Guest]

Apple's license for MacOS states explicitly that you're not allowed to run it on hardware that's not supplied by Apple.

[boshar 6]

Most Mac addicts will never switch to windows. Tech crazy Linux guys are buying Macs now that this OS has firm Unix roots. The only problem they have is that there are always a few legacy or nice application that only work on Windows. And lets not forget the games market which is huge.Old solution buy an ugly (mac addicts vision not mine) Wintel PC.New solution. Buy the Windows

[tf51d 284]

>Apple's license for MacOS states explicitly that you're not>allowed to run it on hardware that's not supplied by Apple.I doubt MS will do this, but it may be possible to get them on the no reverse engineering provision of the EULA! In order for Apple to have built an interface allowing it's system to boot Windows XP, there had to be some level of reverse engineering for Apple (Or anyone else) to establish all the links to boot WIN XP! They may not win, but it might be enough to get an injunction against them, and tie them up in the courts for years! They can also put a condition in the EULA That Windows can't be be installed on any system supplied or made by Apple! Obviously this would be difficult on pre-existing Window Versions, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this on future versions such as Vista!! Just speculating.

[Guest]

not really. From what I understand all they effectively needed was a plugin for their own bootloader to allow other operating systems to load and some drivers.But even if, remember that Microsoft doesn't sell computer hardware like Apple does. They've a vested interest in having their products run on as many architectures as possible, especially if the cost of making it so is minimal for them.Roughly 5-10% of hardware around there are Apples (in the potential business for Windows client versions that is), Microsoft would be rather foolish to prevent all those machines from running their products, especially if the cost of enabling that is born by someone else.

[Guest]

Dual booting for those people who now have 2 computers in order to run both Windows and Mac software saves those people quite a bit of investment (and of course space on and under their desks).

[Guest]

I dont know much about Vista because I havent seen it yet, but if you think OSX is stable then I have a bridge to sell you :)