toggle

AAPL Stock: 502.6 ( + 9.18 )

MacNN News

Apple VP: Mac OS X will not boot on regular PCs

updated 02:35 pm EDT, Wed June 8, 2005

Schiller on OS X on PCs

Mac OS X for Intel will not boot on machines sold by other PC manufactures, according to Apple vice president Phil Schiller. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on ," he said. Schiller calmed concerns that Apple might lose sales to manufacturers of cheaper PCs if Mac OS X could run on such machines. It is unclear how Apple will restrict OS X to Macs. Intel-based Macs might feature a motherboard chip that Mac OS X must detect on startup. Although hackers might find ways to run Mac OS X on regular PCs, Apple's restriction measures should keep average consumers from ever running OS X on a competitor's PC.

As for Mac users running Windows on Intel Macs, Schiller said Apple won't intentionally stop users from doing this. However, Apple will not provide any support, let alone a method, for running Windows.

"That doesn't preclude someone from running [Windows] on a Mac. They probably will," he said.

by MacNN Staff

(39)

TAGS :

industry

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

ibugv4
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2003

0

06/08, 02:48pm | report spam | close Reply |
i think

that it would be good if they made it easily to let Windows be installed on their hardware and just didn't support it. That way they could sell more hardware to more people. Not everyone likes the Mac OS, get over it.

GORDYmac
Mac Elite

Joined: Dec 1999

0

06/08, 02:49pm | report spam | close Reply |
Or...

The chip may not be a run_of_the_mill x86 processor. With the lenghthy discussions involved in this decision [apparently], it's possbile that a different chip is being designed.

slider
Mac Elite

Joined: Oct 1999

0

06/08, 03:00pm | report spam | close Reply |
Sure there'll be a Hack

But your not gonna buy from Dell, HP or any other vendor. Hacked machines will remain small operations, anyone making a biz out of it will have to face legal ramifications, just like others who have tried to produce traditional Mac HD.

ebeyer
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2004

0

06/08, 03:08pm | report spam | close Reply |
VirtualPC?

Even if there is no real hack, would Apple really want to keep somebody like Microsoft from taking advantage of the Intel processor to make a really kick-a** version of Virtual PC?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the major reasons for the performance hit in VPC is the fact that Intel and PPC crunch numbers differently?

So if Apple doesn't support wondows on their MacTels, wanna bet that Microsoft will?

eggegg
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2005

0

06/08, 03:09pm | report spam | close Reply |
Other possibilities.

The phrase "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," isn't enough to go on. Apple doesn't allow the same Mac OS X license to run on two machines simultaneously, but that doesn't stop a whole lot of people from doing it anyway. Don't confuse permission to do something with the practicality of doing something.

With just the one statement from Schiller on the topic, there is no indication that hardware will be the limiting factor. That said, there are a variety of ways to marry the OS to the hardware -- if IBM wasn't willing to spend the time and money to do something custom for Apple, it isn't likely that Intel will either.

eggegg
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2005

0

06/08, 03:15pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: VirtualPC

Apple has already said you can dual-boot.

VirtualPC may be a very different product in the future than it is today -- actually usable for graphics and computationally intensive work -- but there are enough challenges in reconciling the Windows API to the OS X API that the speed will probably only be 60-75% of the host's native speed -- similar to Rosetta in an ideal situation. The endian issue (byte order) is a miniscule part of the problem -- the G4 had the operation in hardware, but it didn't do much for VirtualPC. No reason to expect it to be any different with the Intel-based Macs.

jes
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2001

0

06/08, 03:25pm | report spam | close Reply |
ok

So this was obvious from the get go, and it has now been officially stated... but how long will it be until it actually sinks in and people realize PC's will not be shipping with OS X, nor will it be an easy instal, nor will Mac mobo's and hardware become indistinguishable from that of a Dell. Its a CPU, thats it.... and its likely that intel will be supplying Mac-specific CPU's.

adrian_milliner
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2005

0

06/08, 03:29pm | report spam | close Reply |
vpc

VPC on Windows runs very well, so well, that I tend to run Windows only in VPC, as it's easy to discard a PC that's been riddled with viruses and spyware and start-afresh.

I don't see any reason why VPC on an x86-based Mac will be much different.

Windows is, currently, such a simple piece of kit that it's moderately easy to emulate.... Now Longhorn with it's hardware-intensive GUI (much like OSX) will be a bit tricker, but already, VPC7 + XP + Office 2003 on a G5 Mac is completely usable.

I can see a lot more people buying Macs, comfortable in the knowledge that they can run Windows _well enough_ without a dual-boot situation.

Microsoft won't care, because a Windows license is a Windows license... why should they care that you pay to run Windows on a Mac+VPC rather than pre-installed on a Dell?

All this has got to be good for Apple/Microsoft and the consumer. Just might be a bit tricky for Dell.

Just a thought - Apple already license iPod to HP.... maybe HP will make OSX-PCs ?

medelegant
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2002

0

06/08, 03:39pm | report spam | close Reply |
ROM in RAM... ROM in ROM

Apple has some experiance with putting significant portions of their OS in silicon. As I recall, Outbound made portable "clones" of the Mac way back in the 68000 days that could only work if you ripped the ROM out of a real Mac and installed the salvaged part in the Outbound. The first generation Classic 9" Mac would boot into an all-in-ROM Mac System 6 without any drive at all (on start up hold down Command-X-O). There is no reason why Apple can't go back a little ways and bring back ROMs that hold crucial ports of the OS to protect their intellectual property - and market for hardware. If in the future a lot of "old Intel-Mac motherboards" are being recycled for salvaged ROMs, and Apple sees appropriate potential revenue gains, they may decide to sell a drop in board "hardware license extension" Apple is a hardware company today but after the 6520->680x0->PowerPC transitions and Apple DOS -> Mac System -> Mac OS 7 -> Mac OS X transitions, they are planning for their rebirth as a System Software vendor. Five generations of Mac OS X compiled to run on Intel in their skunk works shops amply demonstrate and proves Apple is capable of very long term planning. Apple's people have vision.. and imagination... always have, and probably, with the inspiration of their leadership, always will.

gudin
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2000

0

06/08, 03:40pm | report spam | close Reply |
re: vpc

Actually, MS might like the idea of VPC better because VPC buyers are buying Windows AND VPC.

Then again if this leads to a massive increase in the Mac marcketshare, maybe they'd get annoyed and intentionally start breaking their software opn Macs.

you never know.

ag4apple
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2003

0

06/08, 03:43pm | report spam | close Reply |
The thing about VPC . . .

People keep mentioning how great it would be if Intel Macs could run some super-fast version of Windows, whether it is VPC or some other installation. But how is that a good thing for the Mac platform? If you could run Virtual PC (or if you could dual-boot into Windows), then you would remove almost every incentive that software makers have to make a Mac version of their software. Why would they go the time and trouble (and cost) to make a Mac version, if every Mac can run Windows at blazing speeds?

These comments have been brought up by Mac game developers over at Inside Mac Games. Keep that in mind when you think about how Apple is going to approach this issue.

ag4apple
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2003

0

06/08, 03:45pm | report spam | close Reply |
Oops

I meant to say "If you could run a super-fast version of Virtual PC . . ."

alex_kac
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: Aug 2002

0

06/08, 03:58pm | report spam | close Reply |
No, it is x86.

The dev docs make it clear its x86. However, its most likely that its because of all the OTHER chips to support the OS that will be required.

bobolicious
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2002

0

06/08, 03:59pm | report spam | close Reply |
It will be nice to need..

...only one computer again... ;-)

ronjamin
Baninated

Joined: May 2002

0

06/08, 04:06pm | report spam | close Reply |
DMCA will kill Clone Wars

REPOST

The fact is that OSX today can run on several IBM PPC workstations. That doesn't mean people will circumvent Apple just to run the OS on a non-Apple machine. Apple doesn't support IBM PPC machines either. But it works!!!!

The DMCA will prevent OSX from being bundled with any non-Apple system. Do you think Dell, Gateway, Sony would risk a lawsuit? I doubt it. There is no need for ROM's, theres no need for hardware dongle chips, theres no need for anything.

The fact is that OSX will work on nearly any Intel PC. Most PC hardware is recognized by OSX. Its an acedemic argument.

However, only an idiot would buy a cheap $300 IBM clone with Linspire and load OSX and end up not get any support AND be in violation of DMCA when they can get a brand new, cool looking, fast, warranty Mac Mini. NO one in the consumer market is going to buy a blank PC and put OSX on it. No one in the corporate market is going to buy blank PC's and install OSX without support. It again is an acedemic argument.

Yes, yes, some hackers, and most likely ME, will build a non-Apple, Intel based mac just to see if we can do it. Its mental masturbation.

Look at the Mini. Its cheap, and will get cheaper as time goes on and it acquires an Intel chip. Apple has to meet or beat the PC worlds cheap PC's. The Intel move opens up a vast supply chain that can adapt to rapidly changing customer demands. PPC, unfortunately, couldn't keep up with that despite it being a more powerful platform.

Bottom line, Im glad they made the move. Psychologically, it removes the chip difference from the table once and for all.

Alexei
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/08, 04:16pm | report spam | close Reply |
typical

Ptretty typical of Apple, intentionally crippling something or other in their machines for some financial purpose. I doubt Mac market share will increase substantially after taking such a hit as it's going to take during the transition. Apple will be lucky to recover without much damage at soem point. Just hope Apple hardware will be competitive with Wintells and not just performancewise. Love my OS X but will welcome a chance to try it on something other than Apple kit.

Peter Bonte
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/08, 04:39pm | report spam | close Reply |
Why?

ag4apple said : "Why would they go the time and trouble (and cost) to make a Mac version, if every Mac can run Windows at blazing speeds?"

Because its going to be easy and osX is the better system? Longhorn will have the same problem, in 2007 win and mac will be treated on equal basis, on equal hardware and both will have a new OS.

Iff Apple can take 20% market, there stock will skyrocket and MS plummet like h*** unless the x-box can wipe out the PS. Definitely interesting years to come :)

rtamesis
Dedicated MacNNer

Joined: Jan 2000

0

06/08, 04:52pm | report spam | close Reply |
Developer's kit

There's an interesting post by someone at WWDC who looked at the Intel Macs running there. http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/index.html#S19337

sbjordal
Dedicated MacNNer

Joined: Jul 2000

0

06/08, 04:57pm | report spam | close Reply |
windoze on Mac

Allowing Windows to be installed on the new Macs is a genious idea. IT departments will get the best of both worlds and it will automaticly expose more users to Mac OS X. Apple has nothing to loose, and that's the point Phil Schiller tries to make: The Powermac is already sold and OS X is already installed. We don't care if Windows is installed. People exposed to *both* Windows and Mac OS X will easily use Mac OS X once they get used to it.

Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN

Joined: Oct 2001

0

06/08, 04:58pm | report spam | close Reply |
duh!!

How styupid do you think they are? Of course they would not allow this!!

Apple will do it with an Encrypted BIOS or firmware. Something not easily hacked, installed, or simulated. This hardware will not exist on normal PC mobos.

alex627
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2004

0

06/08, 05:35pm | report spam | close Reply |
ibugv4

IF people don't like Mac OS why would they buy a Mac to run Windows only?

Of course Microsoft wants Windows to install on a Mac. As said above they don't care who buys it or why.

I will be first in line for a PC that dual-boots OSX and Windoze. And that will be a Mac. Not a Dell or some whitebox. Building a custom PC will be a time-wasting thing of the past and Dell et. al. now have real competition.

Hail Steve.

Miniryu
Mac Elite

Joined: Oct 1999

0

06/08, 05:51pm | report spam | close Reply |
People need to read more

I don't see why people are even discussing this. 1st, the facts: a) Apple already said that the Intel Macs will be able to run Windows. They won't support Windows or encourage it, but it will be possible.

b) OS X will never be able to be run on a non-Apple computer. As others have demonstrated so far this will be fairly simple to enforce as well.

Now if you are asking why people would want to buy a Mac and run Windows on it, you don't spend a lot of time with people. Many many people love the design of Macs and want something that looks cool with their iPod. College kids and the youth see Macs as cool- Apples are "in". Apple will gladly sell their hardware (which includes the price of their OS) to people who intend to run Windows for 3 reasons that I can see:

a) They will get a chance to use OS X (even if it is briefly while preparing the machine for a Windows install).

b) Apple is increasing the market share of their hardware as well as benifiting from the increased sales revenue.

c) They will have yet more people CAPABLE of running future releases of OS X. These people are familiar/comfortable with Windows now, but in the future when it comes time to fork out $400+ for Longhorn these people will have Leopard as a $150 alternative.

dweebert
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2001

0

06/08, 05:52pm | report spam | close Reply |
Crippling?

How is it "typical" for Apple to "intentionally cripple" something? There are lots of ways to get around Apple's intentional limitations, and by and large, Apple has done nothing to stop them from working. (The "Mac on Linux" project is one example, running QT Player 6 "Pro" along with a QT7 implementation is another.)

It will be extremely easy to install Mac OS X on a non-Apple machine. The answer is in Darwin x86, and the list of supported hardware will be similar. If your hardware isn't on this list or the list for which there are official drivers inside of OS X, though, you can count yourself out.

What Apple doesn't want -- and who can blame them? -- is to support any of a bazillion hardware configurations. If somebody wants to buy a copy of Mac OS X (thus paying a margin similar to the margin on a low-end Mac), install it on their homemade PC, and not try to get support from Apple, I doubt they'd really care too much.

resuna
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

06/08, 06:26pm | report spam | close Reply |
One reason to do it...

For desktops it doesn't make much difference... all the parts you physically interact with can be easily replaced by generic equivalents: keyboard, mouse, monitor in some cases...

But laptops, now.

The Apple laptops are pretty in a kind of Back to the Future Delorean sort of way, but they're actually not that nice to use for people who are used to devices like the Thinkpad, with its far superior keyboard, choice of pointing devices, and optionally a higher resolution screen...

I would love to run an OS that doesn't suck on a laptop that doesn't suck, but right now nobody offers that combination...

penfold270
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2005

0

06/08, 07:58pm | report spam | close Reply |
So whats inside

I wander what is insider the macs that will be shipping next year. I mean is apple was going to use run of the mill pc then they could ship them now. I mean Rosetta works and it looks has if some apps will be ready by september, but Apple is wait 6+ mounts for something. Not only that but the dev boxes have to be returned which kinda makes me think that there only an intermediate step and not what a Real Intel mac will be.

ecrelin
Junior Member

Joined: Oct 2000

0

06/08, 08:19pm | report spam | close Reply |
foolish

Is OS X not ready for prime time? If it is then release it for prime time! It could require only specific models form vendors at first that they can insure it would work, but this is an opportunity that won't come again. M$ will be in the throes of trying to pump Longshot up in a state of declining features and consumer confidence, people are already beginning to beg for an alternative. What a choice buyers would have. Age old wormy XP or fledgling unproven project versus OS X? Yes run Windows on the Mintel to expose people but expose them in their own element as well. It will take many years for Apple to be able to simply manufacture enough machines to account for 10% marketshare, they can dupe disks much faster. Macs will always be better made and there is always a good market for luxury but why eliminate the opportunity to get your software on many many more machines. Give me a real downside reason, everyone buying c*** machines on price doesn't fly, there would still be many new Mac buyers and nearly all current Mac users would buy apple again. Numbers going nothing but up� where's the downside again? And the biggest loss of all is the server market, SMBs and bigger concerns have all bought strong PC servers that they would love to have a secure, flexible and affordable system on, with that auto import an NT server feature it would sell like hotcakes. Linux requires a propellerhead on staff, with the Macs you only need one on the phone. This is just really, really stupid, keeps them in a supplyline cage that they may never get beyond critical mass with. Niche players forever.

MacJeeper
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2005

0

06/08, 09:24pm | report spam | close Reply |
Its been done before

Apple will do something like they do now, there are other PPC motherboards that will not run Mac OS X Like apple they can be costly, but they still don't the Mac OS. here is example of one of them http://www.pegasosppc.com/pegasos.php

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/08, 10:22pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: foiolish

Is OS X not ready for prime time? If it is then release it for prime time!

Umm, its not ready for primetime, so you're whole rant is pointless. And who's going to buy it without software, drivers, peripheral support, etc? Sure, sell it now, and its 10.0 all over again.

Geesh, people need to think...

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/08, 10:33pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Why?

ag4apple said : "Why would they go the time and trouble (and cost) to make a Mac version, if every Mac can run Windows at blazing speeds?"

Because its going to be easy and osX is the better system? Longhorn will have the same problem, in 2007 win and mac will be treated on equal basis, on equal hardware and both will have a new OS.

Hey, Peter! Wake up! You're dreaming again!

First off, how is Longhorn going to have the same problem. Of all things MS does, one of them is to keep backward compatibility wherever possible. Longhorn's not going to show up and all the windows developers will have to rewrite their software. Unlike Apple, MS doesn't do that to its customers.

Second, how is it going to be "easy" to make a Mac version of a Windows program? Apple's not moving to the Windows API. They're just changing the processor. Existing Mac programs can, theoretically, be updated to work on the Intel Mac, but what does that have to do with all that software out there not written for the Mac? What about new software? There's nothing about this move that will says to a developer "Hey, make a Mac version, it'll run on windows too, no problem". Two different architectures, two different Operating Systems, two different APIs, two completely different development environments.

Even with WINE and using that to recompile, you're still left with a butt-ugly Windows app pretending to be a Mac app, with all the wonderful crappy interfaces and lousy design that Windows developers are known for.

But for all you people who just don't understand the basic premise of computers, just remember this:

YOU CAN'T JUST RECOMPILE WINDOWS PROGRAMS TO GET THEM TO WORK ON MAC OS X/INTEL!!!!!!!!!!!

So stop going on about how this will bring over all those wonderful Windows apps you've just been dying to get your hands on.

MacJeeper
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2005

0

06/08, 11:25pm | report spam | close Reply |
Testudo

" Longhorn's not going to show up and all the windows developers will have to rewrite their software. Unlike Apple, MS doesn't do that to its customers."

Sorry, but you don't think!

MS is a software company Apple is a hardware company Obviously you understand that Mac OS X PPC software is different than Mac OS X intel software. If Apple has chosen or was forced to change to intel from the trusty IBM PPC. You can't blame Apple for asking their developers to rewrite to software. But you are right, MS doesn't do that, they don't do anything to make windows better.

globewriter
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2005

0

06/09, 01:49am | report spam | close Reply |
I think not

At the risk of bringing reality into this. This is not a wise move. There is currently no example of a better looking computer selling well in the Intel chip world. I also supect the prospect of people choosing a better OS to run on essentially the same system specs is about zero. People ( other than Mac Addicts like us) look at the machine first and compatibility with friends and fellow workers next so I fear we are screwed on the Mac platform. There will be zero incentive to develop mac only applications since the same system can also run Windows. I have had a love affair with Apple since 1982 but I fear our time is coming to an end.. Ironically, Jobs ( and Wozniak) brought us the beginning and will see us to the end. My belief in Apple stock has also fallen since I see no benefits in the next 3 years.

adrian_milliner
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2005

0

06/09, 05:16am | report spam | close Reply |
ms & back compatibility?

" Longhorn's not going to show up and all the windows developers will have to rewrite their software. Unlike Apple, MS doesn't do that to its customers."

If this is true, why does sooo much Windows software REQURED Windows 2KSP4 or XPSP2 ?

Aging 16-bit apps and DOS apps have to run as second class citizens in a padded cell (much like classic on OSX).

When Longhorn does finally ship (assuming there's anything left of it) it will be yet another set of APIs that current apps will be encouraged and eventually forced to adopt, so it's not _that_ different from Apple's strategy.

Apple, at least, stand up and admit it.

paulc
Junior Member

Joined: Aug 2000

0

06/09, 08:46am | report spam | close Reply |
As of now...

Don't get me wrong, there are so many things about this "transition that I do not like... but I am TRYING to find something (anything) that I consider good about it. Unfortunately, the one good thing I keep coming back to is running winblowz at something akin to native speed... for games. Any and all games (including all the A list titles that never do get "ported") at the same times they are released for the "PC" market.

As has been mentioned, the danger to that is that there would be less incentive to actually make an effort to make certain apps and services actually work on Macs (think things like Quicken that only works fully with a few banks compared to the winblowz versions that work fully with all).

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/09, 10:54am | report spam | close Reply |
Re: backward compatibilit

If this is true, why does sooo much Windows software REQURED Windows 2KSP4 or XPSP2 ?

Aging 16-bit apps and DOS apps have to run as second class citizens in a padded cell (much like classic on OSX).

When Longhorn does finally ship (assuming there's anything left of it) it will be yet another set of APIs that current apps will be encouraged and eventually forced to adopt, so it's not _that_ different from Apple's strategy.

Apple, at least, stand up and admit it.

Well, duh, new OSes are going to bring in new APIs. And new programs might end up using the new APIs (or objects or features or whatever), and thus, that new software will require the newer OS.

But THAT WASN'T THE POINT! The original poster made a comment that implied Longhorn was going to force developers to update their code ("Longhorn will have the same problem, in 2007 win and mac will be treated on equal basis, on equal hardware and both will have a new OS." is what he said). It won't. Existing apps, esp. those written for 2K or XP will still work just fine. No rewrites. No required upgrades for the users. Nothing. Mac users, however, are expected to update their software everytime Apple decides to do a 'transition', because they do it so often, and emulation ain't great.

Now, in the course of further development, these programs may take advantage of some new features, but that's new development. Apple does the same thing. CoreImage in 10.4, for example. No one disputes this or complains about this. its a known fact of life. (Actually, IT departments complain to MS all the time about this, because they don't upgrade to the next version of Windows for years after its released, but they want new app support for the old OS. The usual IT whining kind of thing.)

BTW, 16-bit apps don't run like Classic apps. Windows' compatibility layer doesn't run a whole version of Windows 3.1 underneath it, and it doesn't run them as if they're in a strange world (completely different menu bars, window schemes, etc) like classic.

ecrelin
Junior Member

Joined: Oct 2000

0

06/09, 01:13pm | report spam | close Reply |
oh holy testudo

grand wizard of all knowledge and deep thinker. To support your vacuous dismissal of OS X, why don't you list your reasons why is isn't ready for primetime and then list the OSs that are. OS X is as ready for prime time as any on the market. It supports a vast array of PC peripherals and they would have a year to add the ones they want to, and they don't have to support them all out of the box. No software? Rosetta will run current software and most programs can be recomplied in no time to run natively. Its not like they are putting it out today. They can control driver problems by simply qualifying the boxes it will work on. Vendors who don't meet spec won't make the list. OS 10.0 all over again, asinine comment. Your comments on software upgrading and backward compatibility are as baseless, to use your quote "the usual IT whining kind of thing", where does it say anywhere that you will have to upgrade your apps? With Rosetta and PPC apps, your quote "No rewrites. No required upgrades for users. Nothing". So you AND the Longhorn poster are wrong. So Apple's done 2 transitions in twenty years, and their backward compatibility may be different but it is as good as any one else's. Better come down off that high horse before you fall off.

ecrelin
Junior Member

Joined: Oct 2000

0

06/09, 01:23pm | report spam | close Reply |
globewriter reality check

you are on the money about the looks, however, the truth is that many many users are looking for a better OS. M$ has publically admitted that consumer confidence is one of their biggest problems. Did they gain much back after SP2? No. The added costs and complexity of keeping windows running for both home users and IT departments are driving them crazy. Why would some PC manufacturers waste resources to offer Linux as a alternative if they didn't think there was an alternative market. Compatibiity with friend and coworkers has never been more transparent between platforms. Its time for OS X as an alternative on Intel boxes (after a year of preparation) but Apple will apparently not seize the moment. Everyone's loss.

QWER
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2007

0

01/12, 06:34pm | report spam | close Reply |
ааа

alarm beyonce lyric ring bad credit debt consolidation angel locsin billy gilman debt consolidation famous daves gold digger golds gym chell rell bob esponja consolidation federal loan student bobs furniture insurance lead consolidation loan corporate gift basket jennifer beals katrina halili kelly ripa bounty dog hunter bridge fergie london lyric brinkley christie bronx zoo

QWER
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2007

0

01/12, 06:35pm | report spam | close Reply |
ааа

corporate gift idea lead mlm lead mortgage pepsi cola acid battery lead sealed power ranger spd private voyeur rolex replica credit card consolidation brookfield zoo chris daughtry daisy fuentes ronnie coleman snow patrol lyric term life insurance quote tony matterhorn weider dannii minogue destinys child dierks bentley

QWER
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2007

0

01/23, 03:10pm | report spam | close Reply |
nbnvb

aaliyah cds adriana lima adriana sklenarikova adrianne curry ainett stephens alanis morissette alec baldwin alexandra lamy amos tori andie macdowell aishwarya rai alanis morissette alessandra ambrosio alexandra paul alexis bledel anthony kiedis applegate christina ashton kutcher backstreet boy music barbara streisand alicia key alicia silverstone ali landry alizee alley baggett barbara walters

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

02/13	AAPL closes above $500, sets new all...
02/13	Apple to audio webcast Cook's speech...
02/13	Apple launches 2012 back-to-school...
02/13	Apple looking to 'quadruple' India...
02/13	Apple takes top spot from Google in...

Show All

02/13	Apple takes top spot from Google in...
02/13	EU clears Google buyout of Motorola
02/13	VLC 2.0 to get Blu-ray support in OS...
02/13	Sony Music caught inflating price for...
02/13	ITV denies warning Apple not to try...

Show All

02/13	Apple launches 2012 back-to-school...
02/13	Sony Music caught inflating price for...
02/09	Apple explores environment-sensitive...
02/08	Paul McCartney to perform live concert...
02/06	Microsoft prepping Dynamics CRM apps...

Show All

02/13	Refurb. Flip UltraHD Pocket Digital...
02/10	$380 off refurbished 2.8GHz Mac Pro...
02/09	iHome Dual Alarm Clock for Apple iPod...
02/08	Save 69% on SanDisk Cruzer 32GB USB...
02/07	Refurb. Olympus 14MP Digital Camera...

Show All

toggle

Apple VP: Mac OS X will not boot on regular PCs

updated 02:35 pm EDT, Wed June 8, 2005

Schiller on OS X on PCs

Related Articles

Recent Articles

i think

Or...

Sure there'll be a Hack

VirtualPC?

Other possibilities.

Re: VirtualPC

ok

vpc

ROM in RAM... ROM in ROM

re: vpc

The thing about VPC . . .

Oops

No, it is x86.

It will be nice to need..

DMCA will kill Clone Wars

typical

Why?

Developer's kit

windoze on Mac

duh!!

ibugv4

People need to read more

Crippling?

One reason to do it...

So whats inside

foolish

Its been done before

Re: foiolish

Re: Why?

Testudo

I think not

ms & back compatibility?

As of now...

Re: backward compatibilit

oh holy testudo

globewriter reality check

ааа

ааа

nbnvb

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace