- Related Stories
-
Will Boot Camp bring new users over to Apple?
April 5, 2006 -
FAQ: Windows on Macs
April 5, 2006 -
Mac fans sign up for Boot Camp
April 5, 2006 -
Jobs: New Intel Macs are 'screamers'
January 10, 2006
According to tests carried out by CNET product reviewers, a MacBook Pro and iMac running Intel's Core Duo processor and Windows XP delivers equal performance to similarly configured PCs designed to run Windows. On Wednesday, Apple released a beta version of Boot Camp, an application that lets Mac users run the Windows XP operating system on their Macs.
While the results may seem obvious given that the systems had similar configurations, they help answer some of the questions raised by consumers or businesses thinking about running Windows on a Mac when Apple releases a new operating system with Boot Camp later this year.
Apple wants Windows users to fall in love with the Mac OS, and the best way to do that is to remove any objections to a dual-boot Mac, said Sam Bhavnani, an analyst at Current Analysis. If an Apple system running Windows wasn't as good as a comparable Windows system from another PC vendor, some people wouldn't want to take the plunge, he said.
CNET tested a notebook from Acer against a MacBook Pro. The systems had nearly identical configurations, except that the Acer notebook used slightly slower memory--DDR2 memory running at 533MHz to the MacBook's DDR2 667MHz. Performance was nearly identical for several popular applications or tasks, such as Photoshop, iTunes and DivX encoding. Similar results were recorded when an iMac running Boot Camp was tested against Dell and Hewlett-Packard desktops.
One area where the Windows Mac suffered compared with the Acer system was on tests with the "Doom 3" video game. However, the ATI graphics chip used by the Acer system had more memory dedicated to graphics than the one used by the Mac.
Game players are one group of customers thought to be interested in dual-boot Macs, because they tend to like Apple's hardware, but get frustrated by the release of hot games for Windows long before a Mac version is created.
See more CNET content tagged:
Apple Boot Camp,
Apple Computer,
Apple Macintosh,
Intel Core Duo,
Apple MacBook
memory. CNET needs to vet their reports- first they compare
Photoshop in "Rosetta" emulation, not native, in MacOsX to
Photoshop in XP to tout XP, now they can't even get the specs right!
sometimes...
memory. CNET needs to vet their reports- first they compare
Photoshop in "Rosetta" emulation, not native, in MacOsX to
Photoshop in XP to tout XP, now they can't even get the specs right!
sometimes...
form factor, and obivously, if you need a cheap solution, you're
going to be looking at a Dell or HP machine.
But they're not "too expensive". It would be like saying BMWs are
overpriced. Sure, there is a percentage that cannot afford them,
and another percentage that can afford them but does not wish
to shell out the extra cash. But people are still going to buy
them, and if you're looking for style and quality, it's the cream of
the crop.
If you think they're overpriced, then you are not in Apple's target
consumer group, so hakuna matata. You and your comment
have nothing to do with Boot Camp or the increased revenue this
will bring Apple (even if it does cross a sort of virtual moral line).
compete with Windows. However, for the home and SOHO
users, I don't think the same comparison can be made. I paid
$3,000 to $4,000 for Windows machines until the past few years
and even my most recent Dell machines for the home run
$2,000. I recently purchased a 20" Imac and it cost $1,477,
which included the three year warantee, and I would put it up
against any Dell machine I have used. Of course OS X is a lot of
the reason for my satisfaction. After using DOS and Windows for
20+ years, I am enjoying computing again. My thoughts
anyway, John
nearly as often as on Wintel boxes. You don't have to reformat
nearly as often as on Windows.
Exceptional Displays.
They work better because they're better integrated (Apple makes
both the OS and the hardware - that's a significant design
advantage and it shows - in reliability. They "just work".)
They have more *built-in* features including things such as
Apple's Firewire and the latest wireless technologies among
others.
They come with Best-of-Breed multimedia software bundle -
iLife. they excel at multimedia production AND playback.
It's not PC box vs PC box. Apple does have reliable hardware.
But it's the OS that shines!
$2500 depending on where you get it. The MacBook Pro is $2500.
The Mac has a built-in camera, better software and better
inetgration. It's essentially a wash.
what you get, it'll end up being about the same price as a windows
machine. It's the software prices that are more expensive in
professional applications at least and the lack of games that make
the Mac what it has been. Windows on Mac is going to prove to be
a very good thing for Mac users who need windows applications in
some areas of work. It'll also improve the Mac position in computer
sales. I like the idea of windows on Mac!
department I (which mostly ran on Macs) I included comparable
Dells to satisfy the bean counters requirement for competitive
bids. The twin processor Precision workstations, recommended
by our Dell business rep, were about $900 more than the
2x2ghz PowerMacs. (same amount of ram, and same drives,
etc.).
Apple hasn't really cared about the bottom end of the computer
market, so yes they are too expensive for bargan hunters. But
they aren't when your business depends on quality tools.
We don't buy $500 pcs either.
1.)Buy overpriced Mac hardware.
2a.)Buy a full-version of Window XP Home from Amazon.com for $194.99. or
2b.) Buy a full-version of Windows XP Professional from Amazon.com for $284.99.
3.) Enjoy the inconvenience of installing a second operating system themselves.
All so they can run their current applications under their current operating system.
Go to dell.com and cnfigure the equivlent of a Duo Core Mac Mini.
If the Dell is significantly cheaper, then you've left something out.
Compare to pcconnection.com, since they seem to be offering the
best Mac deals.
Dashboard is cool, but not much of a business advantage.
Spotlight (OS X 10.4+) on the other hand makes google look slow. If you want to find what your looking for, keep it on a mac and use spotlight! It's not just a matter of finding filenames faster, it finds it in filenames, folder, content, and even metadata (like JPG images have encoded EXIF data) and MORE IMPORTANT is the layout of the results. It's all categorized and easy to navigate to find the "kind" of result your looking for (ie file name, file type, date range, you name it).
Wm
form factor, and obivously, if you need a cheap solution, you're
going to be looking at a Dell or HP machine.
But they're not "too expensive". It would be like saying BMWs are
overpriced. Sure, there is a percentage that cannot afford them,
and another percentage that can afford them but does not wish
to shell out the extra cash. But people are still going to buy
them, and if you're looking for style and quality, it's the cream of
the crop.
If you think they're overpriced, then you are not in Apple's target
consumer group, so hakuna matata. You and your comment
have nothing to do with Boot Camp or the increased revenue this
will bring Apple (even if it does cross a sort of virtual moral line).
compete with Windows. However, for the home and SOHO
users, I don't think the same comparison can be made. I paid
$3,000 to $4,000 for Windows machines until the past few years
and even my most recent Dell machines for the home run
$2,000. I recently purchased a 20" Imac and it cost $1,477,
which included the three year warantee, and I would put it up
against any Dell machine I have used. Of course OS X is a lot of
the reason for my satisfaction. After using DOS and Windows for
20+ years, I am enjoying computing again. My thoughts
anyway, John
nearly as often as on Wintel boxes. You don't have to reformat
nearly as often as on Windows.
Exceptional Displays.
They work better because they're better integrated (Apple makes
both the OS and the hardware - that's a significant design
advantage and it shows - in reliability. They "just work".)
They have more *built-in* features including things such as
Apple's Firewire and the latest wireless technologies among
others.
They come with Best-of-Breed multimedia software bundle -
iLife. they excel at multimedia production AND playback.
It's not PC box vs PC box. Apple does have reliable hardware.
But it's the OS that shines!
$2500 depending on where you get it. The MacBook Pro is $2500.
The Mac has a built-in camera, better software and better
inetgration. It's essentially a wash.
what you get, it'll end up being about the same price as a windows
machine. It's the software prices that are more expensive in
professional applications at least and the lack of games that make
the Mac what it has been. Windows on Mac is going to prove to be
a very good thing for Mac users who need windows applications in
some areas of work. It'll also improve the Mac position in computer
sales. I like the idea of windows on Mac!
department I (which mostly ran on Macs) I included comparable
Dells to satisfy the bean counters requirement for competitive
bids. The twin processor Precision workstations, recommended
by our Dell business rep, were about $900 more than the
2x2ghz PowerMacs. (same amount of ram, and same drives,
etc.).
Apple hasn't really cared about the bottom end of the computer
market, so yes they are too expensive for bargan hunters. But
they aren't when your business depends on quality tools.
We don't buy $500 pcs either.
1.)Buy overpriced Mac hardware.
2a.)Buy a full-version of Window XP Home from Amazon.com for $194.99. or
2b.) Buy a full-version of Windows XP Professional from Amazon.com for $284.99.
3.) Enjoy the inconvenience of installing a second operating system themselves.
All so they can run their current applications under their current operating system.
Go to dell.com and cnfigure the equivlent of a Duo Core Mac Mini.
If the Dell is significantly cheaper, then you've left something out.
Compare to pcconnection.com, since they seem to be offering the
best Mac deals.
Dashboard is cool, but not much of a business advantage.
Spotlight (OS X 10.4+) on the other hand makes google look slow. If you want to find what your looking for, keep it on a mac and use spotlight! It's not just a matter of finding filenames faster, it finds it in filenames, folder, content, and even metadata (like JPG images have encoded EXIF data) and MORE IMPORTANT is the layout of the results. It's all categorized and easy to navigate to find the "kind" of result your looking for (ie file name, file type, date range, you name it).
Wm
It will be very interesting to see what the next 12-18 months has in store but it is definitely a very exciting time to be holding Apple stock... =]
By they way? I currently have a single Windows machine and a Power Mac (PPC based) so I am looking very forward to the day when all I have to look at is one Mac with all my heavily invested Windows and Mac software on it.
attacks my instincts as a Mac user that they now "support"
Windows), this is an excellent move.
The last few lines of your comment are exactly what Apple was
hoping to hear in response to Boot Camp - and I'm sure they'll
be hearing it a lot more from a lot of people as time goes on.
You enjoy working with both operating systems for whatever
various reasons, and now you can own one, stylish Mac that
fulfills both your Mac OS and Windows OS needs.
This really is an amazing trump card that Apple has played -
Windows can do nothing to stop it, and while it has short-term
benefits for them, I bet their analysts are losing sleep over this
news.
It will be very interesting to see what the next 12-18 months has in store but it is definitely a very exciting time to be holding Apple stock... =]
By they way? I currently have a single Windows machine and a Power Mac (PPC based) so I am looking very forward to the day when all I have to look at is one Mac with all my heavily invested Windows and Mac software on it.
attacks my instincts as a Mac user that they now "support"
Windows), this is an excellent move.
The last few lines of your comment are exactly what Apple was
hoping to hear in response to Boot Camp - and I'm sure they'll
be hearing it a lot more from a lot of people as time goes on.
You enjoy working with both operating systems for whatever
various reasons, and now you can own one, stylish Mac that
fulfills both your Mac OS and Windows OS needs.
This really is an amazing trump card that Apple has played -
Windows can do nothing to stop it, and while it has short-term
benefits for them, I bet their analysts are losing sleep over this
news.
For today's dream is tomorrow's reality.
For today's dream is tomorrow's reality.
windows App in OS X WITHOUT even needing a copy Windows
XP. Boot Camp is just temporary until the next version of OS X
when this could happen. There will be no reason to use Boot
Camp soon because OS X will soon have the ability to run ANY
Windows App native in OSX.
This is just an additional way for Apple to make revenue. Have a
Home and a Professional version of OS X. The Home version is
the same OS X, but the Professional version will let you run your
Windows Apps native for an additional fee.
How would you install Windows software? For example, if a file
has a .exe extension it would allow a Mac owner to install it
using Windows compatible binaries etc... Probably covering a
large part of the software out today designed for Windows. If
this doesn't work with a particular program, then one could then
use Boot Camp. It just makes sense.
Could this be a reason for the Microsoft delay of Vista, as they
think about what they can do to "STOP" Apple without
"STOPPING" actual Windows Applications from working in the
next version of Windows or drastically changing the way
programmers write code for Vista? Of course this is just a
thought...
windows App in OS X WITHOUT even needing a copy Windows
XP. Boot Camp is just temporary until the next version of OS X
when this could happen. There will be no reason to use Boot
Camp soon because OS X will soon have the ability to run ANY
Windows App native in OSX.
This is just an additional way for Apple to make revenue. Have a
Home and a Professional version of OS X. The Home version is
the same OS X, but the Professional version will let you run your
Windows Apps native for an additional fee.
How would you install Windows software? For example, if a file
has a .exe extension it would allow a Mac owner to install it
using Windows compatible binaries etc... Probably covering a
large part of the software out today designed for Windows. If
this doesn't work with a particular program, then one could then
use Boot Camp. It just makes sense.
Could this be a reason for the Microsoft delay of Vista, as they
think about what they can do to "STOP" Apple without
"STOPPING" actual Windows Applications from working in the
next version of Windows or drastically changing the way
programmers write code for Vista? Of course this is just a
thought...
Can you set up your 5 year old mac to run a program controling automation or a model train layout?
Thats whats better about windows hardware.
Just because it had Windows at one time, an Intel PC hardware can run your model train layout vs. another Intel PC that didn't ship with Windows?
that many operating systems, like Windows and now Mac run on.
So, since you want to run your model trains later through the
Winows9X, 2000, XP or Vista OS you probably can now.
that many operating systems, like Windows and now Mac run on.
So, since you want to run your model trains later through the
Winows9X, 2000, XP or Vista OS you probably can now.
that many operating systems, like Windows and now Mac run on.
So, since you want to run your model trains later through the
Winows9X, 2000, XP or Vista OS you probably can now.
Can you set up your 5 year old mac to run a program controling automation or a model train layout?
Thats whats better about windows hardware.
Just because it had Windows at one time, an Intel PC hardware can run your model train layout vs. another Intel PC that didn't ship with Windows?
that many operating systems, like Windows and now Mac run on.
So, since you want to run your model trains later through the
Winows9X, 2000, XP or Vista OS you probably can now.
that many operating systems, like Windows and now Mac run on.
So, since you want to run your model trains later through the
Winows9X, 2000, XP or Vista OS you probably can now.
that many operating systems, like Windows and now Mac run on.
So, since you want to run your model trains later through the
Winows9X, 2000, XP or Vista OS you probably can now.
That said, I won't buy an Apple notebook until their include pointer sticks in place of trackpads. Guess it's IBM for me!
That said, I won't buy an Apple notebook until their include pointer sticks in place of trackpads. Guess it's IBM for me!
his software on Macs pretty sweet deal
his software on Macs pretty sweet deal
Looks genuine.
Guess we'll get to see for sure soon won't we?
Looks genuine.
Guess we'll get to see for sure soon won't we?
developing the next version of Virtual PC that they need a new job.
No offence but good riddence - Hated Virtual PC - Was a "Real", not
"Virtual", sluggish piece of s**t!
Granted that small group doesn't have so much to do besides maintain the existing POS. MS already has Virtual - PC just gave it away in fact and so, gee, maybe they need to port it to the Tiger OS. They will drag their feet, but it will get done.
- A small division of M.S. gone.
-
by K.P.C.
April 8, 2006 8:43 AM PDT
- I guess you can now tell the people at MicroSoft who were
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
- You are confused (somewhat)
-
by
April 8, 2006 8:57 PM PDT
- Dual OS Boot system does not behave anything like virtual OS You are oomparing serial OS with parallel OS. Not the same thing at all. Dual boot does not work for me - but VM will rock.
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (120 Comments)developing the next version of Virtual PC that they need a new job.
No offence but good riddence - Hated Virtual PC - Was a "Real", not
"Virtual", sluggish piece of s**t!
Granted that small group doesn't have so much to do besides maintain the existing POS. MS already has Virtual - PC just gave it away in fact and so, gee, maybe they need to port it to the Tiger OS. They will drag their feet, but it will get done.