Comments on: Apple: Windows on a Mac is here
Company says Boot Camp enables Intel-based Macs to run XP natively. Beta's ready for download.
Images: Installing Boot Camp
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- China arrests thousands in Web porn crackdown
January 2, 2010 6:26 PM PST
- Application packaging for cloud computing: A proposal
January 2, 2010 4:56 PM PST
- When policemen are caught looking at Web porn
January 2, 2010 4:16 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
than 5 buttons now, and the mac only needs one then HU-RA!
we can use OSX. I think OSX is a more solid OS than MS's XP, so
I would go for it
In my opinion, Apple first has to get PC users to try OS X (without having to purchase Apple hardware) for this to make a significant impact to get PC users to switch to MAC/OS X.
Windows is kinda a bastard's Mac, on a good day it works around 45% of the ability of a Mac. MS doesn't own any Hardware, so they are pretty much stuck trying to emulate a Mac on Hardware they have zero control over, and since legally they are barred from making PCs, MS is now dead in the water.
The excellent Apple news today that PC users can now bring over their old legacy code to a new Intel Mac, is great for them. You'll see millions of people this year join the millions that have already made the switch.
It will be like the iPod all over again.
Macs start at just $599 so everything has changed in the last few years.
http://www.apple.com/hardware/
http://www.macprices.com/
than 5 buttons now, and the mac only needs one then HU-RA!
we can use OSX. I think OSX is a more solid OS than MS's XP, so
I would go for it
In my opinion, Apple first has to get PC users to try OS X (without having to purchase Apple hardware) for this to make a significant impact to get PC users to switch to MAC/OS X.
Windows is kinda a bastard's Mac, on a good day it works around 45% of the ability of a Mac. MS doesn't own any Hardware, so they are pretty much stuck trying to emulate a Mac on Hardware they have zero control over, and since legally they are barred from making PCs, MS is now dead in the water.
The excellent Apple news today that PC users can now bring over their old legacy code to a new Intel Mac, is great for them. You'll see millions of people this year join the millions that have already made the switch.
It will be like the iPod all over again.
Macs start at just $599 so everything has changed in the last few years.
http://www.apple.com/hardware/
http://www.macprices.com/
The only thing that I would think of it, what are they going to do
with no second mouse button? MS's XP needs a right click.
left click, scroll button, scroll click and side buttons.
This should take care of your problem.
1) Desktop Macs ship with a configurable mouse from 1 to 4
buttons with scroll ball.
2) The old single button mouses have right-click function by
holding down the single button or ctrl-click to get the "right-
button' pop-up menu.
3) I replaced my PC with a Mac 2 years ago and have never had a
one-button mouse. OS X uses the right-click feature too, just
like XP!
This shows that Apple has a way to go with the majority of
people like this guy (simple users) who know little about
computers and still spout FUD that they are fed!
And oh yeah, one more thing, new Macs now ship with multi-button mice called Mighty Mice. They have for about six months. The one button Apple mouse is a thing of the past.
from someone who has probably never even used a Mac. It's like
me saying I would try Windows but I don't want to have to type in a
command to boot into DOS. Don't know if I stated that correctly but
you get the idea. By the way I do use both Mac and Windows but
mostly Mac.
Macs have had multi-button mice since 1986. Even before Windows. Any Mac works fine with any mouse you plug in. Apple has shipped multi-button mice for over a year now, tons of vendors have supplied multi-button mice for decades.
If you still need the "training wheels" of a 2nd button, that's fine, but 1 button allows for much faster operation of the machine.
Windows is pretty crippled since it can't operate without these training wheels, but Mac users can "fly" through the OS with a single point, since it was "designed correctly" from the start.
Someday you'll understand.
-
The only thing that I would think of it, what are they going to do
with no second mouse button? MS's XP needs a right click.
left click, scroll button, scroll click and side buttons.
This should take care of your problem.
1) Desktop Macs ship with a configurable mouse from 1 to 4
buttons with scroll ball.
2) The old single button mouses have right-click function by
holding down the single button or ctrl-click to get the "right-
button' pop-up menu.
3) I replaced my PC with a Mac 2 years ago and have never had a
one-button mouse. OS X uses the right-click feature too, just
like XP!
This shows that Apple has a way to go with the majority of
people like this guy (simple users) who know little about
computers and still spout FUD that they are fed!
And oh yeah, one more thing, new Macs now ship with multi-button mice called Mighty Mice. They have for about six months. The one button Apple mouse is a thing of the past.
from someone who has probably never even used a Mac. It's like
me saying I would try Windows but I don't want to have to type in a
command to boot into DOS. Don't know if I stated that correctly but
you get the idea. By the way I do use both Mac and Windows but
mostly Mac.
Macs have had multi-button mice since 1986. Even before Windows. Any Mac works fine with any mouse you plug in. Apple has shipped multi-button mice for over a year now, tons of vendors have supplied multi-button mice for decades.
If you still need the "training wheels" of a 2nd button, that's fine, but 1 button allows for much faster operation of the machine.
Windows is pretty crippled since it can't operate without these training wheels, but Mac users can "fly" through the OS with a single point, since it was "designed correctly" from the start.
Someday you'll understand.
-
This is fascinating stuff. Where will it go...
I can see MS actually doing marketing for Windows on Macs!. Remember, MS doesn't make PCs, it sells Windows and Office. How about a dual boot copy of Office for Mac-dows owners;-) Stranger things have happened. Other companies offer dual boot applications.
This is fascinating stuff. Where will it go...
I can see MS actually doing marketing for Windows on Macs!. Remember, MS doesn't make PCs, it sells Windows and Office. How about a dual boot copy of Office for Mac-dows owners;-) Stranger things have happened. Other companies offer dual boot applications.
Gateway does NOT make any computers that will run MacOSX Unix OS + iLife Suite + Mac apps.
Gateway does NOT make any computers that will DUAL BOOT at start up (or triple boot with XBoot for UNIX/LINUX).
Gateway BARELY makes any computers that can run any Windows software.
Gateway does NOT make any computers that will run MacOSX Unix OS + iLife Suite + Mac apps.
Gateway does NOT make any computers that will DUAL BOOT at start up (or triple boot with XBoot for UNIX/LINUX).
Gateway BARELY makes any computers that can run any Windows software.
I'm speaking for myself, but all this time I thought Apple is in it for the OS X. That's why I never took a second glance at Apple as a hardware/software vendor I would use.
distinguishes its products in two ways: First, higher-margin
products with innovative design features (think iMac and Mac
mini); Second, the operating system.
Selling hardware in the Windows world is a cutthroat business
with low profit margins. Of the major manufacturers, only Dell
has been making money consistently quarter-by-quarter.
Apple's alternative model, accordingly, serves it well. It sits
comfortably in the black, not counting iPod sales. Without the
Mac OS, this model does not work very well.
Apple does not need massive marketshare to be profitable. Even
a 1% marketshare gain would be a huge boost to profits. Thus,
Apple need only attract a very small portion of Windows users to
do extremely well.
conceded that Windows has won the OS Wars. I don't remember
where I read it, but it's out there...Steve himself said this. With that
in mind, Apple is free to MAKE MONEY, which is what most
businesses are wont to do. Apple is not selling Windows, but if
users want to run Windows on the Mac, and the capability might
sell more Macs, then why the heck not offer the capability?
now?
Apple's hardware is streets ahead of any other manufacturer. It
software is many times more secure. Its applications are far
more polished. Windoze is one continuouus fight to obtain
workable drivers, patch holes and fight off varuses, trojans and
other malware.
I agree that most software does not run on Macs but the
important stuff does and I just love the security. I think the dual
boot bit is good. It may, however be possible to go further. If
Apple could add Windoze API's to OSX and enable people to run
Windoze applications without even rebooting, that would be
good.
Apple's strength is in its obscurity. They do not have to support
multiple hardware manufacturers and therefore can ensure
much better compatibility.
I think the dual boot is good and may make Microsoft think
twice the next time is threatens to pull Office from the Mac. The
last time they did this sort of thing was when they pulled
Explorer . Three months later Apple had its own browser which
is far superior.
The benchmarks I want to see is a Mac application running on a
Mac compared to the windoze version running on the same
hardware. This would show which is the more efficient operating
system. My money is on Apple.
Apple may just be starting to break the Microsoft virtual
monopoly.
I'm speaking for myself, but all this time I thought Apple is in it for the OS X. That's why I never took a second glance at Apple as a hardware/software vendor I would use.
distinguishes its products in two ways: First, higher-margin
products with innovative design features (think iMac and Mac
mini); Second, the operating system.
Selling hardware in the Windows world is a cutthroat business
with low profit margins. Of the major manufacturers, only Dell
has been making money consistently quarter-by-quarter.
Apple's alternative model, accordingly, serves it well. It sits
comfortably in the black, not counting iPod sales. Without the
Mac OS, this model does not work very well.
Apple does not need massive marketshare to be profitable. Even
a 1% marketshare gain would be a huge boost to profits. Thus,
Apple need only attract a very small portion of Windows users to
do extremely well.
conceded that Windows has won the OS Wars. I don't remember
where I read it, but it's out there...Steve himself said this. With that
in mind, Apple is free to MAKE MONEY, which is what most
businesses are wont to do. Apple is not selling Windows, but if
users want to run Windows on the Mac, and the capability might
sell more Macs, then why the heck not offer the capability?
now?
Apple's hardware is streets ahead of any other manufacturer. It
software is many times more secure. Its applications are far
more polished. Windoze is one continuouus fight to obtain
workable drivers, patch holes and fight off varuses, trojans and
other malware.
I agree that most software does not run on Macs but the
important stuff does and I just love the security. I think the dual
boot bit is good. It may, however be possible to go further. If
Apple could add Windoze API's to OSX and enable people to run
Windoze applications without even rebooting, that would be
good.
Apple's strength is in its obscurity. They do not have to support
multiple hardware manufacturers and therefore can ensure
much better compatibility.
I think the dual boot is good and may make Microsoft think
twice the next time is threatens to pull Office from the Mac. The
last time they did this sort of thing was when they pulled
Explorer . Three months later Apple had its own browser which
is far superior.
The benchmarks I want to see is a Mac application running on a
Mac compared to the windoze version running on the same
hardware. This would show which is the more efficient operating
system. My money is on Apple.
Apple may just be starting to break the Microsoft virtual
monopoly.
which booted into either Mac OS or Linux. (An extension called
BootX made this possible.) As a Unix developer, this gave me a
lot of flexibility. I used (and still do) Mac OS for the artistic side,
art and music. I used Linux for advanced computing and to
connect via Samba and plain old telnet to the Windows boxes
which became the main sources of income. So now I look
forward to a triple-boot machine and a choice of Mac OS, Linux
or Windows. Like most of you, I hate Windows, but reality is,
that's where the money is. Odds are I would only use it for final
builds and testing.
-Phil
P.S. I remember two Mac virii: mdef and wdef. That was ancient
history. Surely they've been eradicated?
which booted into either Mac OS or Linux. (An extension called
BootX made this possible.) As a Unix developer, this gave me a
lot of flexibility. I used (and still do) Mac OS for the artistic side,
art and music. I used Linux for advanced computing and to
connect via Samba and plain old telnet to the Windows boxes
which became the main sources of income. So now I look
forward to a triple-boot machine and a choice of Mac OS, Linux
or Windows. Like most of you, I hate Windows, but reality is,
that's where the money is. Odds are I would only use it for final
builds and testing.
-Phil
P.S. I remember two Mac virii: mdef and wdef. That was ancient
history. Surely they've been eradicated?
Consumers now have a reason to make the switch. They can have a system that runs both OS X and Windows. My views have now been validated by Apple
http://switchtoamac.com
Consumers now have a reason to make the switch. They can have a system that runs both OS X and Windows. My views have now been validated by Apple
http://switchtoamac.com
Kewl!
Kewl!
Their stocks are doing great, their Pro software apps are awesome,
they have soaring profits and billions of $ in the bank. I think their
sense led them in the right direction :)
- Common Sense - From Apple?
- by john55440 April 5, 2006 10:02 AM PDT
- Finally, a little common sense from Apple. Their current market share is so minuscule, that even this small move might have a noticable impact.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Who needs market share?
- by letelido April 5, 2006 11:54 AM PDT
- They're doing fine. Fine for however many users love what they do.
- Like this
-
Showing 3 of 9 pages (627 Comments)Their stocks are doing great, their Pro software apps are awesome,
they have soaring profits and billions of $ in the bank. I think their
sense led them in the right direction :)