- Related Stories
-
Contest pays off for XP on Mac
March 16, 2006 -
How the XP-on-Mac prize was won
March 16, 2006 -
Windows XP-on-Mac contest declares winner
March 16, 2006 -
Windows XP vs. Mac OS X
March 31, 2001
(continued from previous page)
Still, Apple won't provide any technical support for the Boot Camp beta, and the company was quick to point out the potential pitfalls of running Windows. "Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it'll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world," the company warned on its Web site. "So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft Windows security fixes."
Will my software work?
Intel-based Macs running Boot Camp will let people use some products that right now are available only for Windows-based PCs. Some examples:
| Microsoft Encarta | Encyclopedia |
| Microsoft Streets & Trips with GPS | Trip-planning tool |
| Picasa (from Google) | Photo-editing software |
| Norton Internet Security | Internet security software |
| Lavasoft's Ad-Aware | Spyware seeker |
| Square Enix's "Final Fantasy XI" | Video game |
| Valve's "Half-Life 2" | Video game |
Of course, there are also some applications that will only run on Macs. Examples include:
| Microsoft Entourage | E-mail and calendar package |
| NetNewsWire | RSS reader |
| GarageBand | Music-recording and -editing suite |
| Delicious Library | Book, music, DVD and video game cataloging software |
| FinalCut Pro | Video-editing suite |
| Safari | Web browser |
The new software, coupled with the tremendous popularity that the iPod has brought to Apple, could bring more people over to the Apple side, some analysts said.
Paul Jackson, an analyst at Forrester Research, predicts that home users previously daunted by a fear of incompatibly with their work PC and a strong desire to hold on to Windows-based programs may now make the jump to Macs.
Apple's move is great for Microsoft, Jackson said, since it will mean extra sales of XP, but it's bad news for PC makers that previously didn't have to worry about competing for market share with Apple.
"Apple machines are excellently manufactured, and the performance is far superior," Jackson told CNET News.com. "But companies like Dell and HP never really had to worry about competing with Apple in the hardware market. Now you can go in, look at those gorgeous Mac Minis and MacBook (Pros) and view them as a normal PC. You can run XP and never touch OS X, if you don't want to."
And, according to Jackson, Macs seem to do XP well.
"From what we know of the hackers' success last week at the XP-on-Mac contest, once you get XP to run on the Intel Mac, the performance is actually quite good. We will have to actually wait and see the results of more official benchmark testing, but so far, that's what it looks like."
Jackson also noted that Apple's move is an indication of what industry insiders have argued all along.
"By doing this, Apple has made a tacit acknowledgement of what many have already said, which basically is: If you're serious about home computing or small-enterprise computing, you need Windows. There's no way around it," Jackson said.
And, according to Wall Street, this is good news for Apple stock.
Company shares jumped several percentage points in early-morning trading, as analysts had mostly positive things to say about the big announcement.
"In short, we believe this news, more than any news in recent memory, provides a critical boost to Apple's ability to gain share in the PC market," a JPMorgan Chase analyst report said.
Deutche Bank issued a "buy" for Apple stock on a prediction of share gains.Goldman Sachs, however, was not as impressed.
"Given the newness of Intel-based Macs, we would not expect any meaningful impact on Mac sales or earnings in the near or intermediate term," Goldman Sachs in its analyst report of Apple's move. "However, this is another step in Apple's efforts to expand its total addressable market to include a more mainstream audience."
Goldman Sachs also noted that the situation could be a "slight negative for Microsoft" because it does not think that increased Windows sales would have much of an impact on Microsoft's overall percent of the market--but that a migration to Apple computers could.
News.com's Mike Ricciuti contributed to this report.
See more CNET content tagged:
Apple Boot Camp, Apple Computer, IBM PowerPC, Apple Macintosh, Intel
Watch and weep you doubters.
A year ago I said this?
teeheeeee
This is HUGE. Watch. Listen. Learn.
Overpriced hardware running arguably inferior operating system.
This isn't huge. This is anti-huge.
Huge would be OX side-by-side with Wista on a Dell.
Watch and weep you doubters.
A year ago I said this?
teeheeeee
This is HUGE. Watch. Listen. Learn.
Overpriced hardware running arguably inferior operating system.
This isn't huge. This is anti-huge.
Huge would be OX side-by-side with Wista on a Dell.
From the Apple website:
"Word to the Wise
Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it’ll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft Windows security fixes."
Here's another shot at Windows for Apple's website:
"EFI and BIOS
Macs use an ultra-modern industry standard technology called EFI to handle booting. Sadly, Windows XP, and even the upcoming Vista, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS. But with Boot Camp, the Mac can operate smoothly in both centuries."
It's plain to see that Apple hasn't fallen in love with Windows. I think it's simply about selling more Macs and getting more Windows users to make the switch. Good move by Apple. I like it.
It is a good move, I bet this will lead to hardware market dominance, now that users can use both (and who doesn't LOVE OS X?)
From the Apple website:
"Word to the Wise
Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it’ll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft Windows security fixes."
Here's another shot at Windows for Apple's website:
"EFI and BIOS
Macs use an ultra-modern industry standard technology called EFI to handle booting. Sadly, Windows XP, and even the upcoming Vista, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS. But with Boot Camp, the Mac can operate smoothly in both centuries."
It's plain to see that Apple hasn't fallen in love with Windows. I think it's simply about selling more Macs and getting more Windows users to make the switch. Good move by Apple. I like it.
It is a good move, I bet this will lead to hardware market dominance, now that users can use both (and who doesn't LOVE OS X?)
platform. This is going to be huge!!!
If Boot Camp (like the name btw) is going to be released as part
of Leopard, which I recall is going to be realased around the
same time as Vista originally was (ie this year) I'm assuming that
it will be able to run Vista as well? I mean who wants to use XP
when Vista becomes available (assuming of course it is better
and does actually get released at this rate!!!).
Also, breaking news just in...yep we are getting confirmed
reports that Hell has indeed frozen over!!
platform. This is going to be huge!!!
If Boot Camp (like the name btw) is going to be released as part
of Leopard, which I recall is going to be realased around the
same time as Vista originally was (ie this year) I'm assuming that
it will be able to run Vista as well? I mean who wants to use XP
when Vista becomes available (assuming of course it is better
and does actually get released at this rate!!!).
Also, breaking news just in...yep we are getting confirmed
reports that Hell has indeed frozen over!!
It's called Red Box and has been around for years.
Leopard will effectively be this solution ultimately.
It's called Red Box and has been around for years.
Leopard will effectively be this solution ultimately.
Instead it'll have a foul-mouthed drill instructor. :-D
Instead it'll have a foul-mouthed drill instructor. :-D
getting the stability and power of Mac OS X and, really, the ubiquity
of Windows. Apple's even managed to write all the drivers so
everything your Mac computer has, even the eject key, work on
Windows.
It's a 2 for 1 deal. Apple's sealed it for me.
That would be a HUGE reason for the majority of home PC users. This isn't going to make anyone switch to the Apple hardware unless XP was installed at purchase and the price was comparable to a straight XP machine (ie OSX for free to boost hardware sales).
Mom and Pop purchaser out there is attracted to price not gee whiz I can boot two different OS.
So, although I think this is great for the geeks among us, its going to have little impact due to cost issues for the majority of people that just want a basic PC to get on the net etc etc.
Those must be planned for the next release.
As of today, I see no reason, barring cost, for me not to buy a 140ft yacht and sail to Tahiti.
Truth is, if one's not already a Mac luva, there's no reason to spend all that extra money for the computer and TWO operating systems when you can get a Windows machine for less. Yeah, so the mac has an eject button. Yippie. Thats not justifying to me the extra cost. My $800 clone-of-the-week can use virtually any part off the shelf if I need to fix it.
getting the stability and power of Mac OS X and, really, the ubiquity
of Windows. Apple's even managed to write all the drivers so
everything your Mac computer has, even the eject key, work on
Windows.
It's a 2 for 1 deal. Apple's sealed it for me.
That would be a HUGE reason for the majority of home PC users. This isn't going to make anyone switch to the Apple hardware unless XP was installed at purchase and the price was comparable to a straight XP machine (ie OSX for free to boost hardware sales).
Mom and Pop purchaser out there is attracted to price not gee whiz I can boot two different OS.
So, although I think this is great for the geeks among us, its going to have little impact due to cost issues for the majority of people that just want a basic PC to get on the net etc etc.
Those must be planned for the next release.
As of today, I see no reason, barring cost, for me not to buy a 140ft yacht and sail to Tahiti.
Truth is, if one's not already a Mac luva, there's no reason to spend all that extra money for the computer and TWO operating systems when you can get a Windows machine for less. Yeah, so the mac has an eject button. Yippie. Thats not justifying to me the extra cost. My $800 clone-of-the-week can use virtually any part off the shelf if I need to fix it.
like now we will have both one one machine.
And so ends the mac vs. pc debate "have your cake and eat it"
then go get antivirus for mac, what! a new business venture you
heard it here first!!
like now we will have both one one machine.
And so ends the mac vs. pc debate "have your cake and eat it"
then go get antivirus for mac, what! a new business venture you
heard it here first!!
Saying Apple's hardware is superior is like Chrysler claiming the Pacifica is superior. Sure, it's a fine car (I guess) and it is truly superior to other cars ... but NOT ALL CARS.
better deal here not because the hardware is better, or even
cheaper, but because you are buying the ability to run two vastly
different operating systems at once. If there's an attack on your
PC side, just switch back to the Mac and rescue your files. If
there's a PC game you really want to play, it's not a problem. You
can switch back to your Mac once you're done.
Most people aren't concerned enough about the hardware specs
to notice that difference (it's pretty small in the end anyway). The
Mac has become the final solution for a computer.
Qosmio laptop, one of the better reviewed PC laptop lines out
there (a flagship model w/ an excellent screen and Media Center
2005 support A/V hardware). There's no comparison between it
and my PowerBook, however, when it comes to total look/feel/
materials and attention to detail per dollar spent...it's the
qualitative difference between a Jeep Wrangler and a Lexus
RX330, and I paid roughly the same price for the two. It's not
hype, it's not imagined...I've experienced it. Have you sat down
w/ a Mac and really worked one over--if so, you'd know they
build great hardware.
I truly didn't understand what the real tangible difference was
until having them both side-by-side these last few days.
http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,s=1565&iid=127601,00.asp
And I am a computer agnostic as well, I am writing this on an HP laptop right now...running windows XP pro...though I would rather run it on my mac at home as I have had more issues with XP then OS X, and don't go telling me I don't know how to manage my XP systems. I do this for a living
http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,s=1565&iid=127601,00.asp
Saying Apple's hardware is superior is like Chrysler claiming the Pacifica is superior. Sure, it's a fine car (I guess) and it is truly superior to other cars ... but NOT ALL CARS.
better deal here not because the hardware is better, or even
cheaper, but because you are buying the ability to run two vastly
different operating systems at once. If there's an attack on your
PC side, just switch back to the Mac and rescue your files. If
there's a PC game you really want to play, it's not a problem. You
can switch back to your Mac once you're done.
Most people aren't concerned enough about the hardware specs
to notice that difference (it's pretty small in the end anyway). The
Mac has become the final solution for a computer.
Qosmio laptop, one of the better reviewed PC laptop lines out
there (a flagship model w/ an excellent screen and Media Center
2005 support A/V hardware). There's no comparison between it
and my PowerBook, however, when it comes to total look/feel/
materials and attention to detail per dollar spent...it's the
qualitative difference between a Jeep Wrangler and a Lexus
RX330, and I paid roughly the same price for the two. It's not
hype, it's not imagined...I've experienced it. Have you sat down
w/ a Mac and really worked one over--if so, you'd know they
build great hardware.
I truly didn't understand what the real tangible difference was
until having them both side-by-side these last few days.
http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,s=1565&iid=127601,00.asp
And I am a computer agnostic as well, I am writing this on an HP laptop right now...running windows XP pro...though I would rather run it on my mac at home as I have had more issues with XP then OS X, and don't go telling me I don't know how to manage my XP systems. I do this for a living
http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,s=1565&iid=127601,00.asp
lol
maybe you can tell me why the crappy apple hardware bested the competition running windows if the mac stuff is so bad
Stability, heat, and many other issues are more important then speed. My old AMD 2500 custom built rig can easily outperform Intel processors with comparable equipment up to 3 GHz and my rig run at ~1.9 GHz. And it does it at far cooler tempertures, using stock fat/heatsink.
The fact is that the numbers may appear to be in favor of PC's, but the hardware on a Mac runs smoother and more efficiently. That is why it is better hardware.
This is leaving out the solid argument that all processor designs are poor.
- They're so full of it
- by Christopher Hall April 5, 2006 7:00 AM PDT
- "Superior hardware"? Gimme a break. Nothing in a Mac I could build on their website comes anywhere close to the hardware I slapped in my gaming rig in late 2004.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- aww diddums
- by TyTyson April 5, 2006 7:06 AM PDT
- peecee users running scared already. Damn this is fun!
- Like this View all 3 replies
Processing -
- Dont you mean...
- by SystemsJunky April 5, 2006 7:42 AM PDT
- like 2001?
- Like this
-
- again read and learn before you speak
- by grossph April 5, 2006 8:21 AM PDT
- http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,s=1565&iid=127601,00.asp
- Like this View all 3 replies
Processing -
- You are comparing numbers on a side of a box
- by Bill Dautrive April 6, 2006 6:05 PM PDT
- They are meaningless, and anyone who truly knows computers knows that speed numbers are extremely misleading.
- Like this View reply
Processing -
Showing 1 of 9 pages (627 Comments)lol
maybe you can tell me why the crappy apple hardware bested the competition running windows if the mac stuff is so bad
Stability, heat, and many other issues are more important then speed. My old AMD 2500 custom built rig can easily outperform Intel processors with comparable equipment up to 3 GHz and my rig run at ~1.9 GHz. And it does it at far cooler tempertures, using stock fat/heatsink.
The fact is that the numbers may appear to be in favor of PC's, but the hardware on a Mac runs smoother and more efficiently. That is why it is better hardware.
This is leaving out the solid argument that all processor designs are poor.