OT - Windows on a Mac - Native

Sport73 · Post by **Sport73** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:35 pm

For those that missed it; yesterday Apple announced BOOT CAMP, a simple software solution that allows Windows XP to be booted on a partition of an INTEL Mac with native speed (better than most PC's!) and hardware support (graphics cards, networking etc...Yes, you can play Windows GAMES on an Intel iMac!).

For anyone interested in taking advantage of GARAGEBAND for music or podcast creation; iMovie for films, the iLife suite, or simply the beauty and reliability of OSX but who has held back due to applications (GAMES) that aren't available for the Mac, your last dispute just disappeared.

In addition, today a public BETA from another firm was made available to allow Windows to run at NEAR native speed WITHIN OSX, so you don't have to dual-boot. Not sure the performance, but it's close to native thanks to Intel's support for virtualization in hardware/chipsets.

Big news, though for me as an Apple user it's almost a non-event. I use my Mac for productivity and creativity in a corporate environment and pretty much NEVER need Windows. I have a 360 for gaming.

Try OSX and you'll never go back, but this is a nice tool to ease the switch.

PC Lovers flame away!

bdunn13 · Post by **bdunn13** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:43 pm

I don't see how Apple can take something like this and make such a huge deal about it. Hell the OS that Apple built OSX around has had the ability to dual boot for years... I can't ever remember a day when I couldn't dual boot a bsd or linux.

I do own a Mac Mini.. one with the risc processor in it... I am glad I bought one of these as I have no desire to own an intel based machine... my desire and interest in things MAC died when apple got into bed with Intel.

Sport73 · Post by **Sport73** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:07 pm

It's a big deal if you consider:

1. It's almost sacrelig to consider running Windows on a Mac, let alone boot into Windows natively.

2. It's a technical accomplishment that is not trivial, since Mac Intel machines use EFI to support basic I/O while Windows is still stuck in the BIOS world.

3. For Windows users considering the switch, there is no longer ANY reason to hold back. Gaming - check, full Windows legacy application compatibility - check, attractive Apple hardware - check, Stable, virus-free OSX - check.

What more could you want?

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:22 pm

Sport73 wrote:3. For Windows users considering the switch, there is no longer ANY reason to hold back. Gaming - check, full Windows legacy application compatibility - check, attractive Apple hardware - check, Stable, virus-free OSX - check.

What more could you want?

Wait a second....your #3 is severely flawed. Assuming that you want to play games have legacy application compatibility, you're givin up this so called "stable and virus free OSX" because you'd be running Windows just like the rest of us losers, remember? That isn't even mentioning the fact that there still aren't going to be performance parts available since Apple wants you to stick with what they put in their systems for the most part. Are you going to be able to buy the latest video card? Are you going to be able to upgrade in the future? All of those are questions that may or may not be answered.

And since you asked what more could someone want...I bet their answer would be some money off the price tag.

Sport73 · Post by **Sport73** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:33 pm

The PowerMacs are fully upgradeable (though not yet transitioned to Intel) with new video cards etc.

Yes, while in Windows you're susceptible to the frailties of that faulty operating system, but at least you can reboot into a stable and secure OS when you want to be productive. Only a real Apple hater would blame the Mac for the problems of Windows. Some people are never satisfied.

As for the price.

Get a Mac Mini at $599.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:35 pm

The virus issue is an interesting one, in my opinion. I'd like to get a new Intel machine for the sheer speed increase over my G4 and adding the potential to play some PC games that interest me (that are hopefully not too taxing on the graphics-card) does make it even more appealing.

db - outside of the upcoming revision to the Power Macs, the current Intel offerings are pretty much non-upgradeable, so there is no way to keep up with the latest graphics card technology.

And I agree about cheaper hardware, specifically with the Mac Mini. I'm an Apple fanboy and the new prices of the Mini are a bit high for what I perceive to be its place in the pecking order.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:39 pm

Sport73 wrote:The PowerMacs are fully upgradeable (though not yet transitioned to Intel) with new video cards etc.

Yes, while in Windows you're susceptible to the frailties of that faulty operating system, but at least you can reboot into a stable and secure OS when you want to be productive. Only a real Apple hater would blame the Mac for the problems of Windows. Some people are never satisfied.

As for the price.

Get a Mac Mini at $599.

I'm not blaming mac for the problems of windows...it's just you are making it sound like if you run Windows on Apple hardware, then you are going to be safe. Which isn't the case. And who the hell wants to switch back and forth all the time between OS's. I do that with Linux just to learn it and it's annoying as hell.

And what game are you going to run on a Mac Mini at $599 at a decent resolution? The answer...you're not. They are a cool novelty for someone that wants a cheap Mac based computer, but it's not exactly a power horse. I could build a PC for 500 that would run circles around that thing from a productivity and gaming standpoint. And as Dave pointed out, you still aren't going to be able to upgrade components as you can on a PC. Apple is going the right way, allowing for Windows to run on their systems, but they still have a ways to go to satisfy the PC guys that like to build and tinker. I don't think they'll ever go that far.

That's my point.

bdunn13 · Post by **bdunn13** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:45 pm

A virus should not be able to go from Windows to Apple... Windows uses NTFS now and does not have the ability to read anything but that, and FAT 16/32.... I don't know off the top of my head, but I am betting apple uses either Reiser FS or EXT-3 both of which are unreadable inside of windows therefore leaving no way for the virus to propogate.

I have a X2 3800 now, with SLI and 2 gigs of ram... all for under 1200 bucks(built it myself)... I see no need to spend double for less performance and more energy/heat. At this point Intel chips are using a ton of power and producing alot of heat compared to AMD... Why didn't apple make the choice to go with AMD? I am betting they would not have alientated alof of their "loyal" fans by doing this too.

James_E · Post by **James_E** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:47 pm

This actually sounds pretty cool, but I'm slightly skeptical of this whole "MAC OSX" is fully secure thing. How many people out there TRY to write viruses/spyware for it? I'm curious really.. there's a ton of financial motivation to do it for windows since there are so many friggin machines out there. Will it be as secure if it got mass market acceptance like windows has? Has there been any hacker competition with serious motivation (like big money.. $100K or something) to see if anyone can hack it?

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:50 pm

As soon as they can get a decent amount of systems in the world...then people will hack it. It can be done, there just isn't a reason to since there are so few. And it's not like any companies use them, or store important data on them...so it reduces the luster of hacking it even more.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:55 pm

It's a nice thing to have and I wouldn't have thought it was a big deal either.

But the stock is up $10 or something like 16% in two days since this was announced.

Unfathomable.

bdunn13 · Post by **bdunn13** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:57 pm

The biggest reason Windows is insecure is b/c the way people use it. Most people don't do the proper thing and create user account with limited permissions ect.... So when they DO get a virus it has permission to do whatever to their system... if they used an account with limited access, then many viruses would not be able to do anything.

Other OSes like BSD(OSX), Linux pretty much make you do this....

You won't find a real linux user that actualy logs in with root or runs their their webserver with any real permissions...

Thats why 95/98/ME are so damn bad.....

XP/2k is a step in the right direction.. but people don't use it correctly.

From what I heard, they are redoing Longhorn completely(security model)... so it should be even better although I due to all the DRM and "un"trusted computing, I don't think I will ever use that OS.

Sport73 · Post by **Sport73** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:05 pm

James_E wrote:This actually sounds pretty cool, but I'm slightly skeptical of this whole "MAC OSX" is fully secure thing. How many people out there TRY to write viruses/spyware for it? I'm curious really.. there's a ton of financial motivation to do it for windows since there are so many friggin machines out there. Will it be as secure if it got mass market acceptance like windows has? Has there been any hacker competition with serious motivation (like big money.. $100K or something) to see if anyone can hack it?

OSX can certainly be hacked, but its UNIX roots (permissions and amdin authority to execute any install) help to ensure a far more secure environment. There have been attempts at worms for the Mac - someone 2 months ago sent out an IMAGE file that when executed tried to launch a useless little application. However, since it was an APPLICATION, OSX prompted the user to enter their admin name and password before installing/executing for the first time. Anyone with a minimum familiarity for OSX knows that a photo wouldn't prompt you for a password. Still, if the population/target increases, security will become a bigger concern.

Writing a Windows Virus for the Intel based Macs that would cross infect the Mac partition or OS is near impossibe (note I said NEAR, as I know better than to claim never). Windows (NTFS, FAT) can't read Apple's format (HFS+) natively, the windows partition won't even SEE or acknowledge the existence of that drive area. The Mac CAN read NTFS, so it would require the user launching some sort of malicious application from within OSX.

As for the cost of Macs; there is no question they can be expensive, but the value equation is worth it. Try buying a PC with a movie-editor, DVD authoring software, Podcast creater, multi-track recording software, photo management/editing suite, calendar and mail applications, music management software, built in BLUETOOTH and Wireless networking, Virus protection, address book, drive utilities, speech synthesis & recognition etc. I can go on. ALL of these are included on the Mac and are recognized as superior to anything available on Windows.

Again, it takes a true Windows zealout to cast the ability to boot OSX, Windows, Linux and/or more within a single, beautifully designed computer as a bad or even inconsequencial thing. After all, there is no Windows PC today that can run as many OS' or applications as a Mac can with Boot Camp or Parrallel.

LAking · Post by **LAking** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:56 pm

As for the cost of Macs; there is no question they can be expensive, but the value equation is worth it. Try buying a PC with a movie-editor, DVD authoring software, Podcast creater, multi-track recording software, photo management/editing suite, calendar and mail applications, music management software, built in BLUETOOTH and Wireless networking, Virus protection, address book, drive utilities, speech synthesis & recognition etc. I can go on. ALL of these are included on the Mac and are recognized as superior to anything available on Windows.

Here is the problem. Why should I, and especially your average consumer or business user pay a premium for all that stuff if they aren't going to use even half of it? Why should i be FORCED to pay extra money to use that software when i don't want it? Windows does come with all the neccesary things an average user needs or wants. If they think they need something else, they can purchase it. Heck, you can even get itunes for free from the apple web site. And if you are a power user you will probably end up buying a 3rd party program that is far superior to most of the generic apple software that comes with the machine anyway. So you had to pay for a program you didn't want, and then go out and pay for the far superior product you DID want.

I'm a gamer. Macs don't offer anything for me. A PC does everything i need quite well and i can customize to my hearts content for half the price. Every computer game is made for the PC, maybe half of that (probably less) are ever ported over to the mac. You can't get the latest video cards and other performance hardware for a mac. Even with the new intel chips and this boot camp software i STILL won't be able to play most of the games i would want to. So why should i overpay for a machine that can't do what my current computer can?

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:17 pm

I was looking at the latest MACPRO. Beautiful 17' inch monitor, duo core intel processor and now the boot camp software. I am torned in between choices. I am due for a new laptop as my IBM is getting slow. The Macs are definitely pricey and there's this new "leopard" software which is supposed to be the next OSX, correct?

Sport73, I heard the PC software still run rather sluggish on the intel MACs, how improved will this boot camp software be? Will any PC game indeed run on the MacPro without complications on windows?

I love the small prtability of the Sony VGN, and I was chatting with my business partner the other on board and he was telling me that the Sony's don't last too long although the new generation duo core have improved. Any one else has a Vaio to comment about?

Latest high MacPRO model was $2500 compared to the Sony's $2100 high end model.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:47 pm

You must be talking about the MacBook Pro, the laptop. It has only a 15.4 inch screen.

I like the designs of the VAIO but they have a reputation for poor reliability and worse support.

But they have one design which has a 13.3 inch screen with one of the faster mobile GPUs for under 4.5 pounds. They run in the high teens though in price.

Arkin710 · Post by **Arkin710** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:04 pm

I bought a Macbook Pro 2.16 ghz a couple of weeks ago, and it kicks ass. It is way better than my Powerbook in terms of speed. I installed Windows XP on it last night, and it works flawlessly.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:07 pm

I wouldn't expect too much in terms of gaming performance on Windows.

Both the iMac Core Duo and the MacBook Pro have ATI X1600 mobile GPU.

So while okay for laptops, it's still a mobile GPU so it's not like having even a $200 desktop video card.

EDIT: BTW, PC Magazine is suppose to be posting benchmarks today or tomorrow on their site.

Sport73 · Post by **Sport73** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:10 pm

10spro wrote:I was looking at the latest MACPRO. Beautiful 17' inch monitor, duo core intel processor and now the boot camp software. I am torned in between choices. I am due for a new laptop as my IBM is getting slow. The Macs are definitely pricey and there's this new "leopard" software which is supposed to be the next OSX, correct?

Sport73, I heard the PC software still run rather sluggish on the intel MACs, how improved will this boot camp software be? Will any PC game indeed run on the MacPro without complications on windows?

I love the small prtability of the Sony VGN, and I was chatting with my business partner the other on board and he was telling me that the Sony's don't last too long although the new generation duo core have improved. Any one else has a Vaio to comment about?

Latest high MacPRO model was $2500 compared to the Sony's $2100 high end model.

I can't find the link, but there was a video of a MacBook Pro running Battlefield 2 in high-res with options at a smooth frame rate. Windows performance via BootCamp is entirely native, so you can compare the specs directly against a Sony etc.

Most of the benchmarks suggest that the MacBooks are FASTER than PC equivalents running Windows apps due to the use of Intel's latest boards.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:45 pm

My father and I both have Vaios and we love them. Going on two years for both of them and they still run like new. Can't complain about them at all. Never needed the support, so I can't comment on that.

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:48 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:My father and I both have Vaios and we love them. Going on two years for both of them and they still run like new. Can't complain about them at all. Never needed the support, so I can't comment on that.

What video card supports the Vaio? Thanks mate.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:50 pm

10spro wrote:
dbdynsty25 wrote:My father and I both have Vaios and we love them. Going on two years for both of them and they still run like new. Can't complain about them at all. Never needed the support, so I can't comment on that.

What video card supports the Vaio? Thanks mate.

Depends what model you buy. They support a bunch of different ones.

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:48 pm

Hmmm. I was looking for the ones that support duo core, not sure how many Vaios come with duo processor but if I remember correctly the last time I was at a Sony store it was a VGN model? If anyone knows what video card the duo Vaio carries, let me know.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:53 pm

www.sonystyle.com

Arkin710 · Post by **Arkin710** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:08 pm

I think there are 2 models right now for Vaios with Core Duos. The FE series which is a 15 incher. My wife just got one. And the SZ which is a 13 incher that is really slick.