After Jobs’ presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. “That doesn’t preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will,” he said. “We won’t do anything to preclude that.”
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers’ hardware. “We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac,” he said.
Actually, it’s clearly in their business interests for it to be possible to run Windows on Mac hardware. Think about it: if you were buying 20 boxes for a test lab or Internet cafe, what would you get – 20 boxes which can only run Windows, or 20 boxes which can dual boot?
Allowing Windows to run on their hardware, while preventing Mac OS X from running on anyone else’s, is a really smart business move.
I wouldnt ever let anyone boot anythingh if i had an internetcafe…
On the otherhand i would never run an internetcafe.
Maybe i would instal a HotSpot at my Cafe if i had one, but thats all.
On the other hand i would love to run Mac OS X instead of Windows on my machiene. But hardly vice-versa.
I think anything Apple tries to avoid ppl from running Mac OS X on their build-anywhere PC will not be succesful at all. The skillful Hackers Will find away. The question is how hard it will be for em and how long it will take.
There’s really no nead for it to boot windows.
Now that there’s x86 architecture under it, you can bet next generation emulators will be even faster.
Or better yet, 10.6 may just have virtualization so you can run multiple OS’s at the same time. Notice they announced 10.6 at the same time as this, but didn’t say what’s new.
They announced 1.5 (Leopard) not 1.6 ;)
Steve Jobs said that OSX is good enough for them to use 10+ more years, so I suppose we’ll see 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9 and maybe 1.10… (if they keep releasing a new OS every 2 years)
Although they are running out of cats’ names :)
Either you’ll want to run Mac OS X or you won’t.
People won’t pay a lot of extra cash because they might want to in the future, they don’t plan that far ahead especially when it involves money.
I am not looking for a dual-boot machine; I am far more interested in a virtual machine solution that runs code for Intel OSes (Windows, Linux, BSD) real fast. Mac OS X could become the permier host OS for virtual machines. It is stable, fast, secure and user-friendly. It will run on a clearly defined hardware set, which makes it much easier to write a virtual machine package. Mac OS X on Intel could become the OS of choice for all who need virtual PC’s, such as security folk who want to run windows in a sandbox environment, web app designers who need a dozen PC’s at their fingertip, and so on.
Hiring and mature comments
We made a post about hiring yesterday over on the IE team blog There were some less than complimentary comments…
No OSX on Windows boxes?
Steve Jobs says “We will not allow running Mac OSX on anything other than an Apple Mac,” (via Gerv’s blog.) What’s to stop this?
You can already run Darwin on x86, dunno why you’d want to run Mac OS X it’s the most god awful interface ever.
/me anticipates running a triple-boot WiMux machine in the future…he could justify spending the extra money for just OS X but couldn’t see himself paying for the hardware as well.
I don’t understand why letting people run Mac OS X on generic PCs would be a bad idea as long as people are paying for Mac OS X. How much profit do they make on one of those $500 Mac minis? I’d guess it’s about $50 tops. How much profit do they make selling OS X which retails for over $100? It’s probably in the same range… about $50 (more if you buy it directly).
How many sales of Mac hardware will the lose from people buying a new PC and installing OS X on it? Probably not many. Their existing market is pretty loyal, and will probably continue to buy Apple hardware.
Potentially many Windows users will want to switch, but will buy a new Dell or whatever, or upgrade their existing PC (and save a lot of money compared to switching today) to use Mac. People installing OS X on Linux boxes probably doesn’t factor in.
Seeing how small their current market share is (less than 5%), they could gain a lot more by converting a small percentage of Windows users to Mac (say 10% of the total market) by allowing OS X to install on PCs than what they might lose in hardware sales (maybe 10% of their existing market or 0.5% of the total market). If Apple can build a sizable chunk of the market (I’d like to see them reach 30% at least), developers will have a real reason to build apps for the Mac (especially games). That means most applications would start to work on Mac, Microsoft would lose its monopoly, and the market could normalize. How is this a bad thing for Apple or the world?
Two words: support calls. If you can’t control the hardware, your support costs rocket.
They don’t have to give free hardware support for non-Apple hardware. Sure, people would still call, but I have a hard time imagining that a call from some of their new users would be worse than actually developing real market share.
I’d like to run windows on a mac because there are so many programs that don’t ever come out for mac or come out late, plus I like the mac hardware size, simplicity and style.
Is installing windows xp on a mac as easy as on a pc?
What about linux on a mac?
> Is installing windows xp on a mac as easy as on a pc?
It will be if Apple does what they say they will.
> What about linux on a mac?
It’s already very very easy with Ubuntu.
I’m wondering how they’ll keep OS X off Dells. If DVD-Jon can hack iTunes so effortlessly, I’m thinking there’s really nothing they can do as far as technical solutions. My guess is they’ll go with a legal solution. (yuck.)
I think we are going to se what happend to ibm again because the only diference would be the bios and it won’t be long before someone does like compaq did and create a compatable bios
I think this is a great idea.
People buy a mac to use Mac OS not to use Windows so they are not going to lose sales. Now they now have the added advantage of being able to use windows software on it aswell which would encourage more people to buy one. Alot of people would ONLY buy a mac if they could run their PC software on it because alot of people need their PC.
Sales will also probably increase because Intel hardware is comparable to PowerPC hardware (ignore PROTOTYPES test scores because its early days and you gotta work out the bugs)and Intel has processors that will keep Macs around the same speeds as current PC’s. Macs will be cheaper because the hardware is cheaper (always a plus), you won’t start getting WinTel style boxes you will still the elagant Mac boxes because Apple knows that it what Mac users want. Except for a few minor changes you won’t even notice the difference I’d say.
It would be imensly easier to port software onto an Intel Mac, more programs makes more competition which creates better programs (thats how it usually works), better programs makes the mac more appealing.
You have to consider the fact the IBM didn’t see the Mac as a high priority because it wasn’t a big money maker. If Apple had stayed with them the Processor speed gap would have killed apple. Look at the reasons apple said they were doing it. On the other hand Intel is in there with the market playing ball and scoring well. If apple sticks with them they can garrentee that they will always be up there with the PC.
In the end if you ask most Mac users its the OS, the beuty and simplicity of the machine not the processor that made them buy it. A cheaper, more compatible and more up to date mac is emensly better then one that is not not.
I liken this to the tranistion to Mac OS X but not as in your face, people were shocked at first but now the OS we have is one of the Mac’s strongest points. Sometimes progress is hard but it is for the best. Wouldn’t you love to be able to just boot up a copy of windows on your mac and play a new game or wait six months if ever to play it on Mac OS.
The change keeps the core things that make the Mac a Mac but broaden then appeal how could it be said to be a negative.
mnosbercad.com taking ranked in order are pets, baby,
http://texas-gis.osbercad.com/texas-gis.html texas gis parties. The main reasons for taking photographs,
http://shape-files.osbercad.com/shape-files.html shape files according to the study, are to preserve
http://japan-map.osbercad.com/japan-map.html japan map memories, to share later with others,
http://generalization.osbercad.com/generalization.html generalization for pure enjoyment, to take photographs
http://gis-lab.osbercad.com/gis-lab.html gis lab and to give away as gifts. Tell your doctor
http://open-gis-consortium.osbercad.com/open-gis-consortium.html open gis consortium your complete medical history especially
http://sde.osbercad.com/sde.html sde if you have high blood pressure, an over-active
http://job-search.osbercad.com/job-search.html job search thyroid, glaucoma, diabetes or emotional
http://europe-map.osbercad.com/europe-map.html order europe map problems. Consult with your doctor if
http://extensions.osbercad.com/extensions.html extensions you think you are pregnant or before breast-feeding.
http://mobile-gis.osbercad.com/mobile-gis.html mobile gis Alcohol can increase unwanted side effects
http://gps-gis.osbercad.com/gps-gis.html gps gis of dizziness. Consult your doctor or pharmacist
http://gmt.osbercad.com/gmt.html gmt for further information soma. If you miss
http://conservation-gis.osbercad.com/conservation-gis.html conservation gis a dose, do not double the next dose. Instead,
http://georeferenced.osbercad.com/georeferenced.html georeferenced skip the missed dose and resume your usual
http://gis-company.osbercad.com/gis-company.html gis company osbercad.comnm