Apple Supports Windows XP

16 comments

Apple announced that you now can run OS X or Windows XP on Macs.

Apple® today introduced Boot Camp, public beta software that enables Intel-based Macs to run Windows XP. Available as a download beginning today, Boot Camp allows users with a Microsoft Windows XP installation disc to install Windows XP on an Intel-based Mac®, and once installation is complete, users can restart their computer to run either Mac OS® X or Windows XP.

I think my next computer will surely be an Mac.

Comments

Mouse Button

But when will they start putting two mouse buttons on their MacBooks instead of the one big one - anyone got a hacksaw?

Just a question, Aaron -- if

Just a question, Aaron -- if you already have a PC, what would interest you in a Mac? Is it ... well, I won't guess.

I have played a bit with a

I have played a bit with a couple of them and thought they were cool...now that you can get the best of both worlds with one why not?

That's true. I'd also heard

That's true. I'd also heard that, since Macs are running FreeBSD (Unix) and (I think) have a lot of RAM, it might be interesting.

Of course, they also have those gorgeously large monitors. I've seen the thirty-inch, and it's both wide and tall, which means you could have at least two browser windows (or other programs) open side by side. (My only question with this is that Macs display at 72dpi while Windows displays at 96dpi, so there's a difference in the display.)

Hm. That said, it sounds

Hm. That said, it sounds like one might finally be able to see what a Windows display on a Mac would be like -- in-store.

I can't imagine wanting to

I can't imagine wanting to run XP when you can run OS X, except maybe for games. Lots of games in the MS world. That's what all my gaming friends say anyway.

Okay, I still keep my WindowsME machine around to run a $29 shareware bannermaker program which I find really useful. I paid hundreds of dollars for Macromedia Fireworks for OS X and it's still easier to make banners on the cheap $29 windows program.

Reason to keep XP?

Same reason many mac shops still keep legacy Classic/OS9 installs. Just because you spring $2G on a new mac doesn't mean you want to spend a further $X to migrate solely to the one OS.

I'm seriously thinking of

I'm seriously thinking of getting one now cos truth be told BSD is a lovely OS

You've been able to put

You've been able to put FreeBSD and other Unix platforms on Macs for years. Even when they were OS9. (Granted, you had to wipe out OS9 to do it but...)

BSD

(1) You don't need a mac for that: http://www.freebsd.org/where.html

(2) You don't even need to install anything: http://www.freesbie.org/

I've tried option (2), it's okay, nice, like Linux, no big deal. As for mac, why not get the real thing (BSD or Linux)?

Issit those plastic-fantastic boxen that look cool or what? I've always thought they belong in a toy shop, not in a work environment ;-)

*ducks*

you tech heads are avoiding

you tech heads are avoiding the one main thing.

Mac and Win are mainstream and no matter how much I wish I could leave them alone I can't. I need them cos the rest of the world expects me to use them.

Having 1 physical machine that *simply* supports Mac, Windows and Linux is a dream and if I can do it without any (or with little) performance loss and ideally in a virtualised environment so I can jump between the OS's without rebooting then get ready to sign me up!

Is what I am talking about

While I do hate microsoft...

I hate fighting hardware/ drivers even more.

I'm simply not patient enough to fight the hardware/ drivers to make a pc work for me. The last PC I had, I fought the damn thing for a week and then gave it away.

I bought a mac. The damn thing worked. It made my life much simpler.

And, no, I'm not ragging on PC users. PC's just don't work for me.

And I think JasonD hits it on the head. Having one machine do it all is cost effective.

Having one machine do it all

Quote:
Having one machine do it all is cost effective

It's not even so much about cost (though of course it has a bearing) but real world usage. I aint never gonna carry more than one machine with me If a Mac laptop can do it all, then my next purchase is gonna be a Mac.

At the moment I use a lovely Tosh Windows machine that I then use to connect to other machines over (wireless/mobile phone/ethernet) allowing me multiple OS experience. It aint bad but it aint the same as having there just ready on my local machine

OS or hardware? software? habit?

grnidone, you're right about hardware. It's a bitch. But you must have very special hardware if Windowns don't support it. Linux support most stuff as well, as long as it's not "Made for Windows", or too new.

Anyway, I've reached the conclusion that OS isn't that important. Most of the stuff I can do in Linux I can do in Windows, if not all - thanks to Xampp and cygwin. And the stuff I can do on mac that I can't do on windows, what's that? That goes the other way round as well - a Mac user can do everyting we can in Windows, and a Linux user can do everything too.

Oe difference is in the software. MS Office works on Mac as well as Windows. In Linux I can run it as well, using windows emulator software, or so people tell me. I have never had the need to do that, as I have native windows as well, and other office apps on Linux. So, it's the smaller, specialized programs you may miss.

Then there's the user interface. I don't know, I like the choice between many window managers of the Linux/BSD world the most. Others may like the single window manager environments of Mac or Windows (single "shell" or "theme" - the OS can only look and behave in one predefined way). I think Windows XP is damn ugly, and Mac even more so, but Vista looks neat (and Linux-like).

Then there's habit. What you're used to using matters a bit as it's always a bit hard to do things in new ways.

I think habit is the most important of the three. That's why I always end up on Windows even though I don't like it.

Claus: I haven't had a

Claus: I haven't had a windows box in nearly 10 years. So perhaps it's gotten easier to use since I've last used it. But like you say, old habits die hard, and I'm used to a Mac.

Lot of Mac History

I actually owned one for a week once when they first came out WAY BACK THEN and when I saw what it took to program a Mac and the OS had a Pascal stack I sold it before anyone else figured out it was a boat anchor.

Heck, we even had a Lisa, remember those things?

We used it to hold open the door of the engineering dept. to let air in the room, a perfectly good function for such a device and more aesthetically pleasing than the Timex Sinclair wedged in as a doorstop.

My wife used to own a Mac SE when we first hooked up, used it for desktop publishing. When I showed her my desktop publishing tools, with a ton more fonts, running on an adult sized screen and a faster computer the Mac SE vanished into the closet never to be seen again, we think it turned into a dust bunny when it died.

Then there was programming those things even as late as '91 they were still archane. Had a project that needed to be delivered for a cross-platform demonstration of our product and it took 2 Mac programmers a couple of months to create the same thing it took 1 Windows programmer 3 days to build, craziness I tell you.

However, today it looks like they've finally pulled it together a day late and a dollar short and thanks to the iPod a new generation are looking at Macs again and I must admit they look kinda cool but way too expensive for "the rest of us".

Running XP just opens them up to the vast software market the Mac sorely lacks which is a good idea until they get enough market share to start wooing developers to build more native Mac apps.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.