April 06, 2006

• damn, 14 minutes late UTC-wise. make that yesterday.
• Windows totally fucking r00lz!! heh heh heh.
• This will theoretically help with the MoFi rewrite so I endorse this product sight unseen!
• Apple is a company that gets a huge portion of it's income from software sales and high-end and luxury hardware. That G5 tower might make them money but the entry level iBook doesn't really. But both of them generate applecare sales, updates on the OS and the like. Just like how iTunes doesn't generate much revenue but the iPod stuffs their pockets with the Benjamins. For Apple to give up OS X and just make really nice Windows computers they'd be shooting themselves in the foot...with a bazooka. They'd have nothing to compete on, their stuff would do the same as everyone else's stuff. But, they can offer a secure and modern OS with loads of extra features that also boots that copy of Windows that someone "borrows" from the office. And their already mocking Windows by stating that they've overcome a technological hurdle, backwards, to allow for compatibility with the ancient BIOS system of booting up. Now people who might be switchers can get an amazing piece of hardware that'll still run their old OS while giving an increased opportunity to give a skeptic the OS X experience.
• Perfect! Now I can run the one Windows application that I've always wished there was an OSX version of.
• e e Q - thanks for posting this. I saw the story come up yesterday as well, and wondered what to make of it. I think nonbinary makes a good point that it might sucker people (like me) who have never seen the Apple side of things into an apples-to-apples (unavoidable pun) comparison of operating systems. On the other hand, it would seem to signal that Jobs is giving up the battle - or is painting MSft into a nother antitrust corner. I truly wonder what the strategy is here.
• Even more extreme: is this Apple's start towards a graceful exit from developing the Mac OS? I find that unlikely considering the efforts and time spent developing it. Dude, just the opposite. It means they've finally got the Mac OS developed well enough to be competitive. They lacked confidence in it until now, which is why they felt it necessary to force the OS upon people.
• I'm geeked if this means I don't have to give up my mac lifestyle in order to run the windows-only stats programs I need.
• I had planned to buy a PC desktop this year (for testing purposes and to play Spore). Now I'll buy a Intel Mac Tower Pro (or whatever it'll be called) when it will be available later this year. It will be a Mac andsometimes boot into Redmond's latest and greatest. But the partition will be wiped clean if when it gets infected with malware or virii. Best of both worlds. I was really shocked when Apple announced the switch to Intel but I'm surprised how fast I embraced this move. Must be Steve's Reality Distortion Field.
• You said "do do."
• We installed Windows on an Intel iMac today at work. It was noted that it was the fastest, most painless installation of Windows ever seen. It was damn weird seeing XP running on a Mac, but I have to say, Windows has never looked better than it did on that pretty box. Apple's snarky comments are priceless though. The Boot Camp page takes several jabs at it. And then there's the icon: the Windows symbol is all gray, just as Apple's Human Interface Guidelines dictate all pedestrian utilities should be. Heh. Leave it to them to make the best looking WIndows icon ever, and it's hard to miss the fact the negative space on it makes a nice big 'X'.
• I've been a Mac owner for the past three years. (And I still get calls to fix friends' spyware-laden and/or virus-hosed Windows boxes...) I can see the occasional time where I'd want to run a Windows only application, so I can see where this move would make sense. However, I don't see this as a threat to OS X. If you have a choice between booting into OS X or Windows, most pople are going to boot into OS X if they can avoid Windows. Much more smooth, secure and stable, and not only that, XP is butt-ugly. Especially after you've been on OS X. Plus the whole "it just works" thing. OS X isn't going anywhere.
• if you have a choice between booting into OS X or Windows They don't care what you boot, as long as you buy their hardware. That's where they make their money.
• So if I get a Mac, I could play games on it finally? I mean, like, good games? Nice.
• hahahahahahaha Now Macs will get viruses. Ha ahaha ah ah ah ah ahhahahahahahahah hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha. /blacks out
• Is there any benefit to mac hardware other than it's prettiness (don't care) or it's ability to allow one to live a 'mac lifestyle' (don't understand)?
• That was my question too, rocket88.
• The main reason to get a mac (other than the style/hipster chic reasons) is that they control both the hardware and the software, so, as they say, "it just works." Also they've got a great interface. Oh, and there aren't any mac viruses out there that I know of. Which means if you're not a webdev or other programmer who needs to do multiple platform testing, there's only one reason to run a dual-boot Win/OSX system on a mac: crossover. They want converts, so they offer the option of a dual-OS system to those who are nervous about migrating. Mac makes good hardware, but pound for pound, it's generall more expensive than PCs. That's really the only reason I don't run a mac at home.
• For me, the point of running a mac is os X. The combination of a slick, consistent and ergonomic gui, a nice selection of audio software, combined with a complete unix environment is unbeatable. I see that most of my friends, including many sysadmins and developpers, but also musicians and students moved to mac. For me running windows is not really interesting, but I can see the wisdom of allowing that.
• It's a her-mac-phrodite!
• rocket88 wrote: "Is there any benefit to mac hardware other than it's prettiness (don't care) or it's ability to allow one to live a 'mac lifestyle' (don't understand)?" No. Not unless you want to run OSX. If you want to run non-Windows with nice hardware, get a decent laptop and install Linux. Easy to dual-boot there, cheaper than Mac hardware, and no need to emulate the second mouse button (MacBooks still have a single-button touchpad mouse). If all you want is a reliable computer to do computer work, there are plenty of manufacturers who make sturdy, reliable, rugged PCs. Lenovo's ThinkPads, for example. You can practically run them over and they remain usable. OSX has some nice eye candy, but it can be majorly annoying for long-time Windows users. There are things about the OS that just are non-intuitive to those trained in the Redmond Way. There is so far nothing about OSX that has made me want to switch, nor has anything yet justified the cost (hardware + software) of doing so. As I've said in other discussions about this - aside from cross-platform testers or those who work in a Mac environment but prefer Windows at home, or vice versa - this announcement will not be that exciting to most people. Many will probably test it if they already have an Intel Mac handy, but I doubt any Windows users will go buy a Mac just to see what their current OS looks like on different hardware. People on the cusp of changing platforms might be swayed, though. If Apple really wanted people to switch, they would allow (unofficially, of course, and with a lot of warnings about how it wasn't kosher) OSX to install on generic hardware. The large percentage of Windows users currently running an OSX-capable system - myself included - might be willing to give it a shot, dual-booting without much of an investment. Of course this won't happen, because Apple makes its money on hardware. Personally, I think Apple is relatively content to be a boutique business in the computer world. They market their stuff to a small number of loyal customers. People who use them like them, and go out of thier way to defend them. The Mac crowd follows Steve Jobs' every move with rapt attention. If they really, seriously challenged Microsoft for dominance in the PC business, this would change. They wouldn't be the small, edgy, unique company. They would also be competing with a lot of other hardware manufacturers. You think Dell, IBM, Gateway, etc. would just allow thier hardware sales to drop precipitously without a major fight? Heck no. Apple would also have to massively increase in size. This would hurt the corporate culture. Why do you think it's so hard to get things done correctly at Microsoft? The company is just too big to overcome the corporate inertia.
• As it stands, the need to dual-boot and the file system incompatibilities make it pretty difficult to pass data from one system to the other. From an article I read this morning, you can share data between the two operating systems. During the XP install process, it would be necessary to format the partition in FAT format instead of NTFS. Sure, you lose all of the benefits of NTFS, but you have access to all of your data. douggles - can you confirm? Did you format with FAT or NTFS?
• > OSX has some nice eye candy, but it can be majorly annoying for long-time Windows users. You're in for quite a shock when Vista comes out. I've seen the Beta running and it looks like OS X on extacy. It's bright and shiny and flashy and totally useless. I wasn't even able to find the "go back to grey" mode that makes Windows XP useable. Also, its prompts and notices are more patronizing than Mac OS 9. Though the OS X look is graphic intensive, it's unobtrusive. I do agree that Apple enjoys being a boutique brand... but they are expanding.
• and now there is a virtualization solution from a company called Parallels, one day later...
• Actually, I am looking foward to Windows Vienna... "Internal sources pitch Vienna as being not just a major revision of Windows, but a complete departure from the way we have typically thought about interacting with a computer...Vienna is targeted directly at revolutionizing the way we interact with our home and office PCs." Bio-hookup? AI? oO And it's cool that spy/adware won't work on Vienna. This is all in theory of course..
• Also.. Apple Stock is skyrocketing.
• no need to emulate the second mouse button Macs have supported two-button mice for years. Apple even sells a mouse that has multi-button suport.
• Or if you have a single button mouse, it's control + click for right click. It's a total non-issue. (Mouse I am using right now on a Mac has three buttons and a scroll pad.)
• All that has been keeping me from buying the high-end Mac laptops is Pro/E, which is Win, Linux and HP/UX only. If the virtualization code from Parallels works, I'll put Pro on a Macbook, using my crusty old copy of win2k. For fringe uses like these, Apple's move is brilliant, but Parallels' solution looks a tad further developed.
• My format was NTFS, but using some bit or another of shareware allowed Windows to see the Mac volume no problem. I've already deleted the partition though. Within five minutes of booting this morning I was presented with a BSOD, so I said to hell with it and went back to a modern OS. I swear to God, XP has the exact same feeling of fragility OS 9 did. Every time I use it I feel I have to baby it along to keep it running. OS X is nearly impossible to bring to its knees. Can you imagine stress-testing XP by selecting all applications on the HD and simultaneously launching them? I do this all the time on OS X machines. MS, to me, is in exactly the same place Apple was in 1999 in regards to having such an old core in their OS.
• The mouse I'm using right now with my iBook has infrared vision, serves ice-cold beer, and, thanks to the tiny jet pack, hovers about 3 inches above my keyboard. Also, it can predict the final scores of most major sporting events.
• I talked to the IT guys today - they've already put Boot Camp and XP on three Intel Macs. According to them, XP just flat out flies on the Mac hardware.
• I've been getting several email rants from a couple Mac heads. They've basically gone apeshit over windows performance on a Pro. For them, this is just the first salvo on a battle for total domination by Jobs: 'gateway drug, man! They'll go for the design and OSX goodness plus windows compatibility, they'll get fed up with BSDs, and keep booting OSX until they purge XP/2K from their machine!'. While I don't feel as optimist, it sounds very tempting to have a beast that can run just about everything, the best of both worlds. Of course, something tells me that Mr. Bill will have to react to this; this smells like a prime candidate for a major legal action. That there might be any basis or not is another thing.
• kirkaracha wrote: "no need to emulate the second mouse button Macs have supported two-button mice for years. Apple even sells a mouse that has multi-button suport." Yes, they have and yes they do. But if I buy a Mac laptop and run Windows on it using the single-button mouse touchpad, I have to emulate a second mouse button, don't I? That was my point: You can't order a MacBook with a built-in two-button mouse. (And how do I middle-click on a Mac, anyway?)
• Oddly enough I can't help but wonder what people are doing to generate BSODs in XP. I haven't seen one in years. I don't baby my computer, either. I do get the occasional application hang - usually it's something spiking my processor through the roof (I'm looking at you, Firefox - some of those extensions just kill the machine!) but other than that it's damn solid. Not "haven't rebooted in several years like my old RedHat server" solid, but the OS doesn't get in the way of my productivity. Other people's OS, though - that's a time suck. I end up cleaning up other people's computers... oh well, at least I usually get paid for it (in beer, even!) If Mac gains a larger market share, there will just be more people trying to break it. Not malicious folks, mind you - I'm talking about users. Just like the folks who don't see a problem installing bundled spyware because they don't understand it is bad. All a Mac needs is someone to give the installer permission, and you're (theoretically) hosed. The OS might be OK, but don't blame me when your moron co-worker deletes his/her home directory after installing a Dashboard "punch the monkey" thingy.
• All that has been keeping me from buying the high-end Mac laptops is Giant house-sized wads of cash money.
• "Giant house-sized wads of cash money." You know, I get so fuckin' tired of this lame meme. Feature for feature, Macs cost the same, slightly less, or slightly more than the other manufacturers. But people always want to take them to task for having the temerity not to offer a low-end cheap computer. Add in all the things that Macs come standard with, and the cost difference isn't much. And don't forget the tons of free, superior software that comes bundled. Sorry 'bout that, it wasn't meant by any means as a personal attack.
• As a rabid Machead, I can say this: yes, most Macs are expensive. But, after many events when trying to troubleshoot some family or acquiantances' Windows machines ends up in nothing but frustration, compromises, patched expectations and even animosity after HOURS of twidling, messing and tweaking, even when under the supervision of 'experts', AND similar events are much easily solved in OS9/OSX, or things just work to begin with, well... yes, you get what you pay for. At least regarding to fruity computers.
• well, i took the plunge, and installed bootcamp and xp on my macbook pro today... and it was pretty slick and damned easy. got an OEM copy of xp home for only $100 from pcclub.com. what i didnt think of is that parallels installs a virtual drive, it won't (yet, i hope) use my physical xp installation... and i don't want to get my actually legal serial number screwed up by trying to register it in the virtual machine too... also, i noticed that parallels emulates a slower machine, whereas bootcamp at least allows you to run at full power. of course, now that i have xp installed, i don't know what to do with it... i dont have any applications for it.
• If you like, es el Queso, I can send you some viruses applications. They're fun! You'll love the gorilla!