On Apple's Boot Camp
Apr. 6th, 2006 02:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lprovenSo. Apple now does officially endorse running Windows on Macintels.
In some ways a very surprising move, and in others, one fitting in well with recent behaviour.
Guess this is why Apple joined BAPCo, then!
The rumours at the moment are that 10.5 will include virtualisation, which is allegedly supported in the Core CPU, allowing XP and Linux to be run under OS X.
I also recently read an interesting, if somewhat implausible, rundown on 10.5 features.
I can't see much reason for running Linux on a Mac, frankly - OS X offers most of the same advantages and is a better desktop, and the important Linus apps are available from Fink or Darwinports - but XP, while being a PITA to run under a VM (as Apple, entertainingly, notes - see below) would be a major purchasing incentive for Macintels.
Why? Because there are a lot of programs that only run on x86 Windows.
There are several categories.
• There are people too dumb or too lazy to learn a new system or new apps. Some of these people are rich.
• There are companies that mandate Windows. Some of these are rich, too.
• There are people who need very particular apps that only run on Windows. Performance in emulators is not good, and this includes VMware and VirtualPC on x86 - they are still emulators.
• There are apps that are nothing special but that contain large data sets that are too much of a PITA to move.
• There are apps which are tied to particular hardware, and indeed, hardware that's tied to particular apps. I have webcams, phones and other devices that work on USB but only on Windows.
Apple make very high quality hardware. Now it can run the rest of the industry's software, which is often crappy but which people are wedded to. It could sell a lot of Macs.
The snag is that if Apple /does/ release a virtualisation solution that can run XP in a VM on OS X /using VT/ for near-native speed, then that will significantly reduce the driver to produce native apps for OS X. This has been pointed out by several commentators but perhaps most eloquently by a friend of mine, Andrew Orlowski, on The Register today.
It'd also offer a considerable advantage to OS X86 on Macintels as opposed to on generic PCs, either ones with CPUs that didn't support Intel VT or perhaps even on Core-based notebooks whose BIOSes don't support VT.
And I do like the little digs at Windows on the page announcing bootcamp:
Even the little greyscaled stylised version of the Windows logo - recognisable, just, but Apple shouldn't have to affix a ™ or anything. Almost looks better than the Microsoft® version.
In some ways a very surprising move, and in others, one fitting in well with recent behaviour.
Guess this is why Apple joined BAPCo, then!
The rumours at the moment are that 10.5 will include virtualisation, which is allegedly supported in the Core CPU, allowing XP and Linux to be run under OS X.
I also recently read an interesting, if somewhat implausible, rundown on 10.5 features.
I can't see much reason for running Linux on a Mac, frankly - OS X offers most of the same advantages and is a better desktop, and the important Linus apps are available from Fink or Darwinports - but XP, while being a PITA to run under a VM (as Apple, entertainingly, notes - see below) would be a major purchasing incentive for Macintels.
Why? Because there are a lot of programs that only run on x86 Windows.
There are several categories.
• There are people too dumb or too lazy to learn a new system or new apps. Some of these people are rich.
• There are companies that mandate Windows. Some of these are rich, too.
• There are people who need very particular apps that only run on Windows. Performance in emulators is not good, and this includes VMware and VirtualPC on x86 - they are still emulators.
• There are apps that are nothing special but that contain large data sets that are too much of a PITA to move.
• There are apps which are tied to particular hardware, and indeed, hardware that's tied to particular apps. I have webcams, phones and other devices that work on USB but only on Windows.
Apple make very high quality hardware. Now it can run the rest of the industry's software, which is often crappy but which people are wedded to. It could sell a lot of Macs.
The snag is that if Apple /does/ release a virtualisation solution that can run XP in a VM on OS X /using VT/ for near-native speed, then that will significantly reduce the driver to produce native apps for OS X. This has been pointed out by several commentators but perhaps most eloquently by a friend of mine, Andrew Orlowski, on The Register today.
It'd also offer a considerable advantage to OS X86 on Macintels as opposed to on generic PCs, either ones with CPUs that didn't support Intel VT or perhaps even on Core-based notebooks whose BIOSes don't support VT.
And I do like the little digs at Windows on the page announcing bootcamp:
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.Heh!
...
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.
Even the little greyscaled stylised version of the Windows logo - recognisable, just, but Apple shouldn't have to affix a ™ or anything. Almost looks better than the Microsoft® version.
