Apple makes Macs run Windows XP

Tom Warner wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

Yeah, and I have a feeling (we know what that's worth) that Apple's
official solution for OSX 10.5 is going to be more along those lines
rather than a 'dual boot' situation.

The product which Apple has announced is a dual boot solution, not a "run
windows apps on OS/X" solution.

Yes I know what the BootCamp beta is.

My conjecture is that the *actual solution* that will be delivered with
OSX 10.5 will _not_ be a dual boot but rather make use of a Virtual
Machine.

Then why would they not announce that?

I think the BootCamp beta is just there to stir up interest.

Dual boot Macs are old news, going all the way back to the 1980s.

What did they boot other than MacOS?

I think iSteve will want a more elegant solution and now that
Virtualization can run at machine speed, I think they'll use it.

Ever actually use a virtual machine? It runs fast but it's not the same as
running native, especially when dealing with the display.

Need to run a Windows app? Click the icon in the dock.

Linux? Click the icon.

No reboot necessary.

Just a guess of course.

Yeah, you can do that _now_ under Windows.

All the best,
Tom

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

Then why would they not announce that?

Why give away company secrets?

What did they boot other than MacOS?

I used to have a 6100 that had a DOS card - a card with a Pentium chip
and some memory. With a keystroke, you could switch between Mac OS and
DOS/Windows.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

Then why would they not announce that?

Why give away company secrets?

If they intend to keep it secret then it's not going to be much use to
anybody.

It's not like Microsoft would rush to include a new feature in Vista, the
inclusion of Virtual PC as part of the package has already been announced.

What did they boot other than MacOS?

I used to have a 6100 that had a DOS card - a card with a Pentium chip
and some memory. With a keystroke, you could switch between Mac OS and
DOS/Windows.

Forgot about those silly things.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
Randall Ainsworth wrote:


I used to have a 6100 that had a DOS card - a card with a Pentium chip
and some memory. With a keystroke, you could switch between Mac OS and
DOS/Windows.


Forgot about those silly things.


Not silly actually. When I had a Sun Blade 100 I had a Sun PCI card
with a Pentium II, memory, and sound, and it allowed me to run Windows
in a separate window. A great solution since I did a lot of Solaris
work from home but many of our corporate apps required Windows.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

If they intend to keep it secret then it's not going to be much use to
anybody.

Why tip your hand 8 months before the product will be released?

It's not like Microsoft would rush to include a new feature in Vista, the
inclusion of Virtual PC as part of the package has already been announced.

Oh? I haven't heard that. But then, by the time they release that
bloated pig (Vista), I'll be a much older man.

J. Clarke wrote:
cjcampbell wrote:

I don't think I am going to go nuts over it. This is obviously an
attempt by Apple to exploit a weakness in Microsoft. Vista has been
promised since 2004. It is now pushed back to 2007 and still needs 60%
of its code re-written. At this rate, Vista may never run.

Vista runs now. It has some problems, but it runs.

And yet, it still needs 60% of its code re-written, according to
Microsoft.


Meanwhile, OS X has all

All? You mean it has centrally managed security?


Nice buzzword. I suspect that VPN for OS X would do quite nicely.

the features promised by Vista and looks
cooler, too.

Now there's a big selling point for you, "looks cooler". How old are you?

I am nearly 56. I still like things that look cool. I suspect most
other people do, too.


So Apple introduces Boot Camp and maybe some PC users will
now buy Macs, even though the iMac is not that great of a Windows
machine. But they will now have OS X, too and, who knows, they will
start demanding more OS X ports of applications.

Or they'll look at OS/X, read what all the advocates say, and be mightily
dissapointed when it turns out to be just another operating system.


Could be, which is why I think it is a risky strategy. However, not
allowing Windows to run on Mac was probably riskier -- maybe even a
guaranteed loser.

cjcampbell wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:
cjcampbell wrote:

I don't think I am going to go nuts over it. This is obviously an
attempt by Apple to exploit a weakness in Microsoft. Vista has been
promised since 2004. It is now pushed back to 2007 and still needs 60%
of its code re-written. At this rate, Vista may never run.

Vista runs now. It has some problems, but it runs.

And yet, it still needs 60% of its code re-written, according to
Microsoft.

That's odd, I thought it was according to some Australian blogger. If you
have an official Microsoft statement to this effect please be kind enough
to present it.

Meanwhile, OS X has all

All? You mean it has centrally managed security?


Nice buzzword. I suspect that VPN for OS X would do quite nicely.

Nope. VPNs are not even close. If you think that centrally managed
security is a "buzzword" you've never worked with a system that has such a
capability.

the features promised by Vista and looks
cooler, too.

Now there's a big selling point for you, "looks cooler". How old are
you?

I am nearly 56. I still like things that look cool. I suspect most
other people do, too.

I prefer things that do what I need. If I want them to "look cool" that can
be added.

So Apple introduces Boot Camp and maybe some PC users will
now buy Macs, even though the iMac is not that great of a Windows
machine. But they will now have OS X, too and, who knows, they will
start demanding more OS X ports of applications.

Or they'll look at OS/X, read what all the advocates say, and be mightily
dissapointed when it turns out to be just another operating system.


Could be, which is why I think it is a risky strategy. However, not
allowing Windows to run on Mac was probably riskier -- maybe even a
guaranteed loser.

So their entire prior strategy was "a loser"?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Tom Warner wrote:

My conjecture is that the *actual solution* that will be delivered with
OSX 10.5 will _not_ be a dual boot but rather make use of a Virtual
Machine.

Absolutely not. The dual boot machine will run Windows natively. It
isn't just the speed, there are many programs that won't run in Virtual
Machine mode.

J. Clarke wrote:
cjcampbell wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:
cjcampbell wrote:

I don't think I am going to go nuts over it. This is obviously an
attempt by Apple to exploit a weakness in Microsoft. Vista has been
promised since 2004. It is now pushed back to 2007 and still needs 60%
of its code re-written. At this rate, Vista may never run.

Vista runs now. It has some problems, but it runs.

And yet, it still needs 60% of its code re-written, according to
Microsoft.

That's odd, I thought it was according to some Australian blogger. If you
have an official Microsoft statement to this effect please be kind enough
to present it.


It should need no re-write at all. Vista was supposed to have been
released two years ago. It was supposed to be code complete a long time
ago. Yet Microsoft is obviously rewriting it.

Meanwhile, OS X has all

All? You mean it has centrally managed security?


Nice buzzword. I suspect that VPN for OS X would do quite nicely.

Nope. VPNs are not even close. If you think that centrally managed
security is a "buzzword" you've never worked with a system that has such a
capability.

Well, of course Windows *needs* more security, doesn't it? But
Microsoft has a habit of claiming that their software will have a
feature and then not delivering. When it does not have it, or if they
are not able to actually implement it, they simply redefine the
feature. We will not see what centrally managed security means to
Microsoft until Vista is released, if ever.

But why wait for Vista? OS X is here now. Windows XP is getting pretty
long in the tooth. I have fewer compatibility problems with OS X than I
do with Win XP. If I want a RAID setup, I just tell it so. If I want a
network, it happens. With Win XP I have constant network problems,
where this computer can't see that computer, etc. Yet the Apple can see
and talk to them all, no problem, even when they won't talk to each
other.


the features promised by Vista and looks
cooler, too.

Now there's a big selling point for you, "looks cooler". How old are
you?

I am nearly 56. I still like things that look cool. I suspect most
other people do, too.

I prefer things that do what I need. If I want them to "look cool" that can
be added.


Fine. I suppose you could have just gotten by with CP/M if that is all
you wanted, or if you wanted Microsoft's clone, DOS.

And here I thought all along that the whole point of a GUI is to be,
well, graphical.

More to the point, I prefer to use the proper tool for the job. I have
no problem with Windows if that is what I need. I just find that I am
needing it less and less these days.

Really, all your posts have shown is a profound ignorance of OS X.

So Apple introduces Boot Camp and maybe some PC users will
now buy Macs, even though the iMac is not that great of a Windows
machine. But they will now have OS X, too and, who knows, they will
start demanding more OS X ports of applications.

Or they'll look at OS/X, read what all the advocates say, and be mightily
dissapointed when it turns out to be just another operating system.


Could be, which is why I think it is a risky strategy. However, not
allowing Windows to run on Mac was probably riskier -- maybe even a
guaranteed loser.

So their entire prior strategy was "a loser"?


It made them profitable up until now. But strategies have to change
with the times. Unfortunately, Microsoft is not showing anything
particularly innovative. I think people are tired of that.

cjcampbell wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:
cjcampbell wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:
cjcampbell wrote:

I don't think I am going to go nuts over it. This is obviously an
attempt by Apple to exploit a weakness in Microsoft. Vista has been
promised since 2004. It is now pushed back to 2007 and still needs
60% of its code re-written. At this rate, Vista may never run.

Vista runs now. It has some problems, but it runs.

And yet, it still needs 60% of its code re-written, according to
Microsoft.

That's odd, I thought it was according to some Australian blogger. If
you have an official Microsoft statement to this effect please be kind
enough to present it.


It should need no re-write at all. Vista was supposed to have been
released two years ago. It was supposed to be code complete a long time
ago. Yet Microsoft is obviously rewriting it.

So? NT4 was late. Windows 2000 was late. Windows XP was late. Why should
Vista be any different?

Meanwhile, OS X has all

All? You mean it has centrally managed security?


Nice buzzword. I suspect that VPN for OS X would do quite nicely.

Nope. VPNs are not even close. If you think that centrally managed
security is a "buzzword" you've never worked with a system that has such
a capability.

Well, of course Windows *needs* more security, doesn't it?

Not "more security". Centrally managed security. That means that an
administrator sitting at his desk can with a few mouse clicks change a
security setting on every machine in the network. I'm not talking about
who can log in, I'm talking about changing it on specific files, folders,
or registry keys on each machine on the network. How do you do that with
OS/X?

But
Microsoft has a habit of claiming that their software will have a
feature and then not delivering.

That particular feature was present in Windows 2000.

When it does not have it, or if they
are not able to actually implement it, they simply redefine the
feature. We will not see what centrally managed security means to
Microsoft until Vista is released, if ever.

We already know what it means. It means the same thing that it means in
Windows 2000 and XP. There will presumably be some extensions that allow
control of new features.

But why wait for Vista?

Uh, to what purpose would one be "waiting for Vista"?

OS X is here now.

So is Plan 9. So what? You're saying that I should ditch all my paid-for
64-bit hardware for 32-bit Macs?

Windows XP is getting pretty long in the tooth.

For what purpose? Unix is older than NT--by that token OS/X is even longer
in the tooth.

I have fewer compatibility problems with OS X than I
do with Win XP.

Of course you do. There's only one hardware vendor to deal with.

If I want a RAID setup, I just tell it so.

And Windows prevents you from this how? OK, the desktop versions don't have
redundancy, just RAID 0--I don't like that choice by Microsoft but every
motherboard out there has RAID-1 built in these days and some have RAID-5
so it's pretty much a nonisssue.

If I want a
network, it happens.

Same with XP.

With Win XP I have constant network problems,
where this computer can't see that computer, etc.

Then you need to learn how to manage the network.

Yet the Apple can see
and talk to them all, no problem, even when they won't talk to each
other.

If they're all set with their security wide open.

the features promised by Vista and looks
cooler, too.

Now there's a big selling point for you, "looks cooler". How old are
you?

I am nearly 56. I still like things that look cool. I suspect most
other people do, too.

I prefer things that do what I need. If I want them to "look cool" that
can be added.


Fine. I suppose you could have just gotten by with CP/M if that is all
you wanted, or if you wanted Microsoft's clone, DOS.

Did for a long time. Then used OS/2 for a while. I don't see any reason to
change operating systems just to be fashionable. If you're 56 and still a
slave to fashion that pretty much tells us all we need to know about you.

And here I thought all along that the whole point of a GUI is to be,
well, graphical.

No, it's to get work done. Apple for years believed that it was just to
look pretty, which is why their OS was single-tasking _years_ after Windows
went protected-mode SMP. Well, that and they couldn't figure out how to
write a protected-mode SMP OS.

More to the point, I prefer to use the proper tool for the job. I have
no problem with Windows if that is what I need. I just find that I am
needing it less and less these days.

Really, all your posts have shown is a profound ignorance of OS X.

And yours have shown that you don't know diddly-squat about Windows. I've
used Macs in the past. They never impressed me. I've played with OS/X.
It also doesn't impress me. Tell me something that it actually does that I
can't do with Windows other than be fashionable and the file search and
claims of being somehow magically immune to malware.

So Apple introduces Boot Camp and maybe some PC users will
now buy Macs, even though the iMac is not that great of a Windows
machine. But they will now have OS X, too and, who knows, they will
start demanding more OS X ports of applications.

Or they'll look at OS/X, read what all the advocates say, and be
mightily dissapointed when it turns out to be just another operating
system.


Could be, which is why I think it is a risky strategy. However, not
allowing Windows to run on Mac was probably riskier -- maybe even a
guaranteed loser.

So their entire prior strategy was "a loser"?


It made them profitable up until now. But strategies have to change
with the times. Unfortunately, Microsoft is not showing anything
particularly innovative. I think people are tired of that.

I don't see any innovation at Apple--they've always been a "steal somebody
else's idea, find a way to close it to other vendors, and market the Hell
out of it" company. Tell me _one_ actual innovation that originated at
Apple.

On the other hand, I see quite a lot of new stuff from Microsoft. Can you
take a pen and scribble all over a document stored on an Apple? You can
with Windows. What does Apple have in the way of group calendaring and
scheduling? How about reading your email on any machine on a network with
_all_ of it, including read and recently deleted files, available to you?
I'm not talking about using some Web-based monstrosity either. What do
they have in the way of a database manager? How does one manage security
on a network full of Macs anyway?

Microsoft goes after the corporate market. Apple doesn't have a clue _how_
to go after that market. They have come up with product after product
after product that fills real needs--it's easy for them, they're a Fortune
50 corporation themselves, they know what they need and they develop it and
sell it.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)