You need a Windows XP Service Release 2 installation CD, the stuff that you got with VPC 6.0 back then will not work.

By the way, thanks Apple for giving Dvorak more fuel. That lunatic will tell us about how he got it right but nobody believed him. Sigh...

I noticed that a number of stock anylists downgraded Apple stock the day before this was announced. Obviously they were informed in advance and aparently they don't like it.

MacNN, how can this NOT be your top story of the day. This is HUGE news. Don't believe me? take a look at AAPL's meteoric rise this a.m.

Hahaha, most stock analysts don't know s***... Even if they had been informed about Boot Camp, they would have downgraded the stock so their company and clients could buy more before a big jump such as the one we're seeing now.

WOW, this really is quite huge.

Some random thoughts... with something like this coming from the fruit, maybe not so much need to go get a real wintel machine and run a hacked version of X on it. Good potential boost to the stock which has been hammered the past few months. Maybe makes it easier for folks to buy one of the MacIntels.

absolutely amazing that they don't view this move as marginalizing OS X. what an interesting day.

I just read about a survey of college students that when asked if Macs could also run Windows along side X would they purchase a Mac. The answer was around 14% saying yes. These were apparently existing PC users.

...of the end.

I really hope this isn't looked back upon one day as the moment Apple stopped being an innovative computer designer with a unique operating system and became just a seller of high-end prestige PC's that runs Windows. I don't know enough about their motivation (stock value, undoubtedly, Apple isn't a charity) or long-term plans. But the end result might be a split in the spike of "Windows on a Mac" users between those PC owners who buy an Apple machine to run Windows, and Apple users who buy Windows to run it on their Macs and are seduced by the wider selection of software and peripherals. In the latter case it might very well end up that when the time to buy a new computer arrives, the once proud Mac user stays with Windows and buys a much cheaper (in every sense of the word) PC to run it on. With Boot Camp Apple might very well become the architects of their own demise. But what do I know... I only hope I've read the situation entirely wrong.

Jacques

I don't think so. It seems to me that by allowing Windows to be easily installed on Apple hardware that more people will be willing to make the move to Macs and, once there, will soon discover how good it feels to use Apple's superior OS.

This is huge news that will without a doubt increase the number of Apple users. Why buy a computer that can only run one OS? Two for one is an age old and very successful marketing idea. Smart move Apple!

Does anybody know if this solution will provide native GPU (and therefore games) support?

I have a stack of old PC games I'd like to fire up again.

Yes, it does have native support for all of the h/w.

This is just incredible. Way to go Apple!

-mx

This should boost Intel Mac sales by a whole lot... Apple is not officially supporting dual boot on the Intel Macs, which is HUGE news!

Anyone can get a Mac now. Even the engineers, who could not live without AutoCAD, Pro-E and others... they can simply boot into Windows for their CAD applications, and then booth back for everything else.

The gamers can play their favorite games under Windows and do the rest on a Mac... this is incredible news.

Way to go Apple!

Windows users will take Apple MUCH more seriously when considering hardware (for a few bucks more I can get BOTH?), and Mac users are rewarded with being able to EASILY and QUICKLY run the few Win programs that might help them.

At the risk of making a terrible pun, this is a WIN-WIN for Apple. I've *already* heard from half-a-dozen people who I had been unsuccessful at "switching" who are now ready to buy. Their comfort zone has finally been reached with this.

As for the people who worry about Macs becoming high-end Windows machines, allow me to present Exhibit A: Classic.

Remember? You were SOOOO worried about being able to run your OS 9 programs that you knew and loved? You were SOOOOO worried that it wouldn't be fully compatible?

How much do you use Classic NOWADAYS??

Case closed.

will they run Vista..

did steve pay bill 150M to delay Vista so m$ could specifically engineer it to detect mac hdw.

Okay, this is major progress. I'm tired of lugging around a Mac and a PC laptop. Question: rather then eating up my internal HD with Windows software that I only occassionally use, does anyone know if Boot Camp will recognize and boot XP installations on an external Firewire drive? That would be a major killer solution, trading in a whole PC laptop for a lightwight portable drive. Next on the table is 2003 and server software.

How is this going to make Apple just a high-end PC maker? How is this going to slow down OSX innovation? How is this going to make XP any better as an everyday OS? How is this going to make anyone move from OSX to XP?

What this will do is double Apple's share in two years and level a playing field that will force Apple to make OSX even better to use than XP no matter what M$ tries to do. We already have proof that a hacked MacBook Pro can run XP faster than Dell laptops. We have proof that customers would like a virus "free" alternative. We have a huge installed iPod user base. As M$ transitions to Vista and everyone is forced to upgrade to do anything with all of the bloatware, they will have finally a real choice to make!

Apple had to do this and it had a 6 month window (pun) to do it.

Although I think this is likely to be more positive than negative in the long run with where OS X is sitting right now in comparison to Win, in the short run, I think this may mean porting games to OS X is going to take a hit.

From a purely economical point of view, the price differential for some games, even years after they've been out on both platforms is something many of us gripe about. A rosy view might be that it will force that to change. A not-so-rosy view is that those ports in the near future may just never get off the ground.

In any event, it should be an interesting year to come!

First, it lets the "hackers" of the world cause a lot of media free media attention by having a contest to see who could be first to boot Windows XP on a Mac. Maybe Apple even covertly supplied the $14,000 prize. You could not have paid for better advertising to get the word out (to people who do not read "Mac news" every day) that Macs now have Intel processors so they can "in theory" boot Windows directly and run it natively.

A few weeks later, Apple releases a formal "no risk" way to do it.

AND, Apple does still does not need to pay Microsoft a Windows license fee nor incur the significant cost of providing tech support for Windows users.

This is a very good thing. More people will buy Macs now and even pay for their own Windows license. Once a new "Mac Windows" user sees that Mac OS X is superior, he or she will transition to Mac OS X and boot into Windows only when necessary.

From a software developer standpoint, this is not that much different than having Virtual PC around. Developers will NOT stop supporting Mac OS X because "Mac users can just run Windows." A new Mac does not come with Windows installed and Apple is not officially supporting Windows. In fact, this will no doubt help Apple statistically by increasing Mac sales, which may convince more developers to support Mac OS X.

Best and worst of both worlds!

and, you get to support two OS for each user.

You will now be able to run the PC version of Adobe Studio CS2 faster on and Intel Mac than the Mac version . . . for at least a year.

This is beta software. Apple's instructions on installing Win XP is pretty long and detailed. You just know that people who have trouble following instructions are going to s**** up the installation process, start clogging Apple's support lines and complaining when told that Apple does not provide any support for this.

Once the software expires,does this mean that the Windows partition will become unavailable? What happens to all your Mac and Windows files once you install Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard?

This is an excellent psychological move by Apple. They are offering dual booting as an added feature, which will convince a lot of consumers to finally try out the mac. This means that PC folks can be assured that all their stuff, including software on their old PC, would be completely backwards compatible.

Basically Apple is saying, "If you want Windows, we'll give you that feature, but you'll probably won't need it later on..." Since this would give these consumers at least some exposure to Mac OS X, slowly but surely, more users will discover and stick to the main operating system, which is OS X. This is the key thing here, that these users will eventually realize how stable and robust OS X really is. Plus, the ease of software usage on this platform (such as iLife apps).

The people at Cupertino and the mac fans out there, all know that Mac OS X, is more superior, so perhaps this move is part of grand long term plan, to finally advertise the greatness of OS X without assessing anything negative to Windows.

It may seem like a compromise on Apple's part for the short term, but Apple knows they are the experts at innovation, and entertaining consumers with interesting technology. So if you're a Windows user, and Apple came out with this great software and innovative technology, which can run on Mac only. No problem. I can boot into OS X, and sooner or later, PC users would eventually stick to it, because they will realize they can do everything that they could on Windows, but more.

Apple knows that virtually nobody can compete on their level of innovation, so they will be sticking around for a very long time. At the end, we'll probably see more and more apple equipment, in businesses and homes. Think about the hardware sales that will sky rocket.

I was concerned that the move to Intel meant a significant change for Apple and now I am sure of it.....Boot Camp means a slow end to the Mac OS.

With significant changes coming to Windows in the Vista and later updates, I now believe that the Mac OS will become a shell for Windows. Think about it: Apple produces boutique hardware and installs a Mac-altered version of Windows on their machines. Now, Apple is a player on the level of a Dell or HP with higher profit margins and tight control over software and hardware.

I sincerely would not be surprised to see a Microsoft takeover of Apple and a unified Apple-Microsoft software/hardware solution. Sure this scenario is wack....but Apple's nod to MS today reveals a side of Apple that I was hoping would not happen. Yes, Apple will make loads of $$$....and, as a nostalgic user of PPC and Mac OS, I will stay in my world as long as I can

To me this sounds like just the "out" developers have been looking for to stop development of OS X versions of their software.

Over at Macintouch someone posted this, which, I hate to say, sounds a lot more plausible today:

Support: "To play the game, reboot into Windows, sir." Customer: "But I don't have Windows!" Support: "I'm sorry sir. We don't support Mac OS X. The box lists software requirements 'Windows XP or Vista'." Customer: "But it says, 'Supports Mac hardware'!" Support: "It does support Mac hardware, sir. Not Mac OS X software. The box says 'requires Windows XP or Vista'."

I'd like to hear from folks who disagree (I need something to cheer me up today after this announcement). I'm just counting the days until the first "no further OS X versions" announcement is issued by some software publisher.

Since this appears to repartition your drive without data loss, could you do so and then use the new empty partition for something other than windows by just rebooting into MacOS and initialising it with disk utility?

I really don't see the downside to this. Being able to boot into Windows provides a safety net for switchers who are considering moving to the Mac. However, the odds are that once a user has experienced both OSes, they will migrate to the Mac OS as their primary system.

Did having the ability to boot into OS 9 kill OS X?

It also makes the Mac the most compatible computer on the planet. You name the software, an Intel Mac can run it.

You watch. One or two felines after Leopard, the OS will allow Vista apps to run right with in the Mac OS, making the dual boot unnecessary. MS won't care about this now, because they still get their Windows sale. But in the future, it will get really interesting.

...whiney pvssies.

apple could announce tomorrow that it had purchased MS outright, still had $100Billion in the bank, and was shutting down the "windows project", and some of you will still say this was the beginning of the end.

apple is a hardware company! they make great software as a lure. they have always faced the battle against cheap hardware and the pervasiveness of windows. and in that climate, they have thrived for the last several years, getting better every year.

now people have 1 more very powerful reason to buy apple hardware. and most PC users who've spent quality time with Mac OSX have a very hard time going back to the horror of DLL/Virus/Crash h***.

do you really think Apple hasn't thought this through???

I don't think so. It seems to me that by allowing Windows to be easily installed on Apple hardware that more people will be willing to make the move to Macs and, once there, will soon discover how good it feels to use Apple's superior OS.

That assumes they keep OS X. With such small drives on laptops, specifically, or just because they want to run windows, they may just OS X out the door and run Windows as the only OS. Or, even if OS X stays on the machine, most users aren't going to want to switch back and forth, and, thus, just leave it running windows.

This is huge news that will without a doubt increase the number of Apple users. Why buy a computer that can only run one OS? Two for one is an age old and very successful marketing idea. Smart move Apple!

Because most people could care less about running two OSes. Or most people see that they can get a Dell much cheaper then a Mac. With intel Macs starting at $600 (sans monitor OR keyboard) and $1300, and Dells starting at $400 (with montior), people are going to go where it starts off cheaper.

...whiney pvssies.

apple could announce tomorrow that it had purchased MS outright, still had $100Billion in the bank, and was shutting down the "windows project", and some of you will still say this was the beginning of the end.

apple is a hardware company! they make great software as a lure. they have always faced the battle against cheap hardware and the pervasiveness of windows. and in that climate, they have thrived for the last several years, getting better every year.

now people have 1 more very powerful reason to buy apple hardware. and most PC users who've spent quality time with Mac OSX have a very hard time going back to the horror of DLL/Virus/Crash h***.

do you really think Apple hasn't thought this through???

tetsudo: "Small drives on laptops" ?

What laptop are you using? And external HDs are big and cheap.

"Because most people could care less about running two OSes. Or most people see that they can get a Dell much cheaper then a Mac."

That is already the case. What is your point? Most Mac people won't run both, or care. But there are tons of people around the world who live on both platforms due to work, etc. This just made my world a whole lot better. And my company won't be forced to keep crappy PCs around that can run the latest versions of Windows for testing apps. Apple has provided a very seamless solution for the future.

At the risk of making a terrible pun, this is a WIN-WIN for Apple. I've *already* heard from half-a-dozen people who I had been unsuccessful at "switching" who are now ready to buy. Their comfort zone has finally been reached with this.

Yeah, but is average-joe consumer going to buy a mac because it can run his windows programs by dual booting? I seriously doubt it. Its great for some tech-heads, but people aren't going to start switching just because it can now run windows (if it did it virtually, then maybe).

As for the people who worry about Macs becoming high-end Windows machines, allow me to present Exhibit A: Classic.

Remember? You were SOOOO worried about being able to run your OS 9 programs that you knew and loved? You were SOOOOO worried that it wouldn't be fully compatible?

Exactly what does this mean? Don't worry about your OS X programs because you can upgrade to Windows programs soon enough so we don't have to worry about our precious but out-dated OS X apps and once you've got all your apps updated to windows versions, you can throw out your copy of OS X?

Because that's what all of us with Classic programs had to do to stop using the annoying, buggy, and inconsistent classic. Its not that "Hey, apple cleaned up OS X so you can still run all that code, but now better". You had to get updates. So why update to OS X apps? Just get the cheaper Windows apps and just skip the whole dual-booting thing...

How much do you use Classic NOWADAYS??

Case closed.

Well, a lot of people don't use classic, because Apple killed it when they went intel.

But a lot of people still use classic apps on the PowerPC machines, because there still isn't compatible software for the task, or just no software out there that does the job as well (a lot of people, for example, still like to use Word 5.1, the last 'good' version of word), or just don't want to spend all that extra cash to upgrade software that works for them.

So, for most people, the case isn't closed.

Got as far as getting the Mac drivers into the XP...on reboot BSOD...ARGH...anyone get there yet?

One issue...I AM currently cheating and using a Dell machine's XP Service Pack 2...Don't know, but could easily see how, this would be a problem...anyone?

for some time, and for some time as a Microsoft product that is bundled with Windows. This fact did not make developers say their PC product was compatible with Macs, because the fine print states you need Virtual PC and Windows XP. This announcement is not that different; you still need to buy and install Windows, which is not supplied or supported by Apple.

What this move does is "allow" a new huge group of customers to buy Macs. When they boot the computer the first time, they will be in Mac OS X. At that point, unless they have a real need to run Windows-only apps, they may never go through the process of installing Windows. So this gives them an excuse to consider a Mac. Once they have a Mac, Apple is confident they will use Mac OS X instead of Windows.

Apple makes money selling hardware. This will no doubt improve hardware sales and sales statistics. That will be motivation for developers TO support Mac OS X (and not the reverse).

This is not significant at all. As few people seem to be aware, a few weeks ago a contest - sponsored by OnMac.net - was set up to get Windows XP to dual boot. Someone one the contest. But what does dual booting get you anyway? It means you can buy one machine and run either operating system BUT not both at the same time.

So in at least one important respect, dual booting doesn't do what products like Microsoft's Virtual PC have done for years - allow you to interact (copy, paste, etc.) between Mac and Windows. It's true that Virtual PC has to run under emulation on PowerPC so it's slow and doesn't support all games and isn't yet available for Intel-based Macs, but a company called Parallels is supposed to come out with a product quite soon and it's hard to imagine Microsoft or VMWare won't.

To put it in perspective, the market has bid Apple up $5 for a piece of beta software that's no different from what came out a couple weeks ago independently. Nor does it have the functionality of Virtual PC. Ask yourself if even a small company like Parallels came out with a true PC-within-a-Mac product would it be worth $4 billion? Because that's what the market just tacked on to Apple's market-cap because of this silly beta product.

Did having the ability to boot into OS 9 kill OS X?

No, but that's because a) They had classic, so, for some, they didn't have to boot into classic

and b) Apple killed OS 9 booting before users killed OS X booting. And they did this to force users into os x, because, you know, some people just didn't want to, (or couldn't, due to software conflicts, or hardware that didn't have OS X drivers, which, early on, was pretty much every piece of hardware), switch. h***, there's people still wanting to use classic.

We don't know who the 2 guys girls were that got the reward for the hack. May be it was people on the Mac team making some extra cash utilising some of the work they did on Boot Camp.

The idea that you can actually run Windows does take the fear out of buying a Mac (for the Sheeple out there).

There is a small chance that developers will use this as a reason not to support OSX.

OSX has to support DarWINE. That is, running Windows Applications without the Windows Operating System.

Dual booting is a pain in the a**, however, as I said, ppl interested in either buying a cheap $500 Dell, or a cheap Mac Mini, which would you choose?

One step closer to the Mac becoming the ultimate Swiss Army Knife.

People who currently use Mac OS X will continue to do so, that won't change. Why would I stop using OS X just because I have Windows available to me? People who wanted to switch now have a compelling reason to. I see this as a potential for huge sales increases. The death of OS X? I say the birth of OS X. This will take it more mainstream.

Instead of [remember OS9->OSX] waiting for M$, Quark, and Adobe to get Universal Binaries out the door, Apple has made a move that will kill a few birds with one stone:

1. They get folks to buy a Mac (duh?) 2. Professionals can now run Photoshop, Office, and XPress much faster in the Windows environment (instead of Rosetta). Heck, it'll probably be more robust too--I know that's the case with Office. 3. Legally, the users who install existing copies of Windows on their Macs have to ditch their PCs.

While I have concerns, this looks promising from a hardware perspective, at least. I'm still unsure where this leaves the big three and their support of OS X down the road.

Just installed 'Boot Camp' on my iMac and to be honest I am very very impressed. The installation process was extremely easy and I experienced no glitches what so ever. Whilst I love Mac OS X sometimes it can be a pain that I don't have access to a Windows based PC. Therefore this is the perfect solution for me.

against the big-time PC industry leaders, such as Dell, HP, and IBM. No matter how s*** and well-built their hardware is, they can't become a big-time hitter in the PC market while focusing on our current 5% marketshare. So, if they intend to be profitable in the long term, they've got to go for the big market - which is Windows.

In his recent column, 'Is Apple Switching To Windows?', John Dvorak may have hit closer to the mark than most long-time Apple users might have liked. While Apple's stating that they have no plans to support or sell Windows explicitely, they're obviously planning to make it easy for people to do so. Somebody at Apple may be thinking along the same lines - let Microsoft deal with OS problems, while Apple becomes grossly profitable selling machines to new customers who never would have purchased without the Windows option. OS X's days may be numbered, indeed, if true compatibility and marketshare is what Apple is after.

If they're trying to bring the iPod's glorious success to the Mac line, this is the only real way to do it. The world of Apple just changed today in a big, big way.

Since I've been flamed as a "whiney pvssie", let me make my case. I worked in an environment that was OS/2 centric. From version 1.0 of that OS, IBM and Microsoft invested $$ and time. By version 2.0, IBM and MS divorced, and Windows went full steam ahead. OS/2 was famous of making an easy time of dual booting Windows and of running 16-bit Windows programs in a window on the desktop.

The technology behind OS/2 was amazing and it led, directly, to the end of the OS. OS/2 developers slowly stopped development in favor of Windows BECAUSE of the ability to dual boot....WordPerfect is a famous example of this change....the OS/2 version was just 19 days from OS/2 beta when the company pulled the plug on the software and created a version of WordPerfect that ran in Windows and cooperated with OS/2. After that version (6.1), WordPerfect focused solely on Windows.

My point is just this: developers, given the choice, will code for the platform that makes the most $$$ sense. If you can code for one OS and run on multiple platforms, why code for two, three, or more?

I'm still putting my hope in WINE because I have no desire to use the full Windows OS. I'd rather just have the option of running a couple of Windows applications directly in OS X with WINE technology and still have access to all of the other open OS X applications. I don't want to be cut off from my OS X applications while booting into the Windows partition to use one or more applications that are not available in native OS X code.

The timing's good for switchers. They can use their existing copy of XP on their new IntelMac. By the time Vista comes out, they'll have had enough time to experiece what 4% of the world knows, OSX is better. Wanna beet Vista doesn't make sales projections?

Im a Designer, and have both used and supported Mac's for 10 years... I recently took a job that is completely windows based and I was thinking (dreading) about buying a PC for home... Now I dont have to :) And Ill be able to use PC only software like 3D studio Max.... I hope all this works out!

Well, there is "Yellow Dog" (others too) linuxes for ages that can run on Macs (including PPC) and in fact provides better performance on some tasks (serving).

You don't use them or even try them. Why? Lack of commercial app support. Why? Because Linux can also boot into Windows with "dual boot". Companies don't CARE to code for an entirely different OS with entirely different ways (SDKs)

I hope some people will understand that "stupid people" jumping up and down are concerned for the future of OS X.

OS/2 was dead not because of global microsoft conspiracy or something. It died because it could run DOS and Windows (3.1 and 32s) BETTER than MS-DOS itself.

If I _had_ to run an MS DOS program on x86 24/7, I'd still buy a second hand OS/2 version 4 and run it on that.

My take. Bad News.

[b][i]This move in the end, will be exactly the same as the OS/2 and Win 3.11 tragedy...[/i][/b]

Even though OS/2 was superior to Windows, it was squashed. And even though OSX is in every way superior to Windows - I fear our days as OSX users are numbered.

I can see in the future Adobe saying, "Today we are releasing Adobe CS4, Which is our best product in history! and its fully compatible with Vista!"

Today is a sad day...

After "Tiger" the next OS X should have aptly been called Lion or Leo. Now I know why "Leo Pard"

In the Philippines "Pards" is a colloquial term for "friend" --I believe a combination of "kumpare" or "Pare" (spanish "com-Pad-re") and the english "Part-ners".

With Windows booting on a Mac I guess theres no reason for windows users to cross over. Its like breaking the Berlin wall. Windows users welcome to Mac.

OS/2 died because it was a better windows than windows at the time and so developers only development for windows instead of OS/2. Apple including wine would be a bad thing actually because it would do to OS X exactly what happened to OS/2.

Dual booting is not a viable alternative for productivity applications. It is only useful for testing and games.

aristotles said: "Dual booting is not a viable alternative for productivity applications. It is only useful for testing and games."

I'd say "Dual booting is not a viable alternative for productivity." Give me a VPC XP-in-a-window and I'll be interested.

One of the attractions of this approach is the way it "sandboxes" the OS. The viral/malware nasties have to get past the OSX firewall and associated config first.

All that aside, I think this knocks the biggest argument against switching flat: "I'll have to buy new versions of all my software". Now you don't. If you're mad enough to drop the whole OSX partition and just run Windows, good luck to you I suppose. But what's more likely is people will find themselves booting up that XP partition less and less as time goes by. Using iLife should see to that.

cheers RET

won't put us on level gaming playing fields. Video cards are 6 months to a year behind on Macs so my games will run as slow as they do on my Mac when they are ported. Unless Apple somehow has a way for us to start using all pc parts... I myself can't see paying a grand to run a 39.99 game, two new Nvidia or ATI cards, for best performance. I see this as a silly move but I might be wrong. And I'm still not buying a new Desktop Mac untill they have it all ported on Intel. I'll be building a new gaming Peecee with new AMD chips by then...

who's used Windows on a regular basis isn't going to switch to Windows because of this.

I _love_ OS X (with a few exceptions, many of which will probably disappear once Core Duo Macs are smoothed out).

I _tolerate_ Windows when I'm not on a Mac. I wouldn't switch to Windows if Vista were $29 and Leopard $299.

Now, I understand the idea of dual-booting, but say the Windows XP side gets a virus, does that affect the entire system or would you be able to boot and load the Mac OS X side of the disc without trouble? It is inevitable that viruses are going to be an issue when it comes down to dual-booting.

on one side, I'm concerned about developers no longer spending money to continue developing for the mac..but that doesn't seem likely as this would be requiring all existing customers to buy not only a copy of windows but a new Intel-based mac.

on the other side, as a former mac/win system analyst...now 100% mac support; I think of how much easier it would be to support a fleet of Mac Minis running either XP or OS X instead of some Dells here (and their problems) IBMs or whatever here and there. I would think it would be cheaper and more efficient to buy a large order of Mac Minis to support, for example, the PC upgrades for a medium-sized advertising agency.

Ideally, Mac OS X needs WINE to run those two or three apps that some of us want to use from time to time without having to boot windows xp or otherwise at all!

YEAH!! This is it!! As a professional developer I only need to develop a windows version. Mac's can use it....?!?

Maybe no native MAC Software anymore....

THINK DIFFERENT

Needed to upgrade my perforce server. Bought a Macmini - CoreDuo 1.6GHz with 80GB HD, 512 MBRam. For fun, used Bootcamp to install WinXP SP2. Runs great. No need to buy a PC.

Also for testing installed Visual Studio 2005 - runs great. Prograph CPX - runs great. Perforce Client runs great - in fact all apps run faster than my 2.4 GHz PC.

Next up - replace my 2.4 GHz PC with a new MacPro/TowerMac then I can develop for MacOSX a n d Windoze all on one hardware platform - saves me money.

Already new this - but seeing MacOSX and XP, almost side by side really makes XP look sad. MacOSX is so elegant.

This comment is about how a lot of the stories on this site have been written. "Today Apple announced..." or "Apple announced today..." When the stories are over a week old, using the phrases "Today" is quite innaccurate. Those catching up after a few days get the wrong information. I would suggest either not using that when writing the stories, or changing the story after "today" is over.