I am with Ikrupp. Major developers are going to be majorily tempted to abandon development for the Mac. This will be especially true for game developers.

Adobe will likely develop CS3 because right now close to 2/5 of its business is from Mac users. Adobe will not risk that business. I suspect Microsoft, after the five year contract expires, will also abandon mac support.

The only way developers will not be tempted to abandon the Mac is if Apple's market share dramatically goes up, and it can be documented that people prefer OSX.

What the naysayers are missing is that the difference betweening running OS X on my iMac and WinXP on my iMac is stark, to say the least. The workflow that is present throughout Mac OS X disappears as soon as the Windows chime plays. The automation features in Mac OS X are nowhere to be found in Windows. Just ask yourself why so many pros use Quark/Adobe on Macs when the very same software is available for Windows.

If nothing else, these intel-related moves will shake things up.

If I can get a Mac and still run my old windows apps, it will be tempting. If I'm a developer, dumping OS X support may be tempting. If I'm Apple, licensing OS X to a PC manufacturer or 10 might be tempting.

If this move results in Mac sales increasing, that's a good thing. If it results in switchers that otherwise were too afraid to try the new platform, that's a good thing. I know lots of people (relatives!) who like the sound of the Mac, like to see my Mac, but have too much Windows c*** to make the jump (or so they think.) This may be the move that snares them.

Of course, if the opposite happens, and developers believe that people are buying macs but running windows, then they will be tempted to dump os x. At that point, Apple plays the wild card, and OS X becomes available on third party hardware. Then all bets are off.

OR.. instead, Apple plays another wildcard and pulls the plug on support for duel booting windows. Then everyone has a mac only and will either sell it or stick with it and make it work.

I was hoping that a feature like WINE would be implemented in 10.5 where windows native software ran side by side with my favorite mac apps. This dual boot thing is a rouse to bump the move more hardware and bump the stock price. I think it was smart to not write drivers for the camera, remote and other stuff. It will reinforce the driver h*** that windows users have come to know and love.

Let's face it--if Apple didn't write this software then Microsoft would have, or at least something very very similar.

The investors are happy with this, because it ensures means Apple will be around for a long time--if only as a Windows box maker.

However, I don't think this is Apple's fate. There may be some developers who drop OS X support, at least initially, esp. game developers. At the same time, a windows-boot feature will enhance Apple's marketshare as a box maker, which will also increase Mac OS X's installed base. The increase in the OS X installed base will maintain and augment the attractiveness of OS X to software developers.

It is a bit of a gamble as far as the operating system is concerned, but I don't think the risk is too high, and the possible payoff is substantial.

If they do implement a WINE virtualization environment in Leopard, this Boot Camp will still be required to resize the partitions and get a working copy of Windows installed. Once that's done, then 10.5 can virtualize the good working copy of Windows on the other partition.

Some people INSIST on getting marketshare confused with computer and OS ownership -- there is more to marketshare than how many boxes are sold with Mac OS or Windows.

Just becasue 95%+ of CPUs come with Windows doesn't make them all Adobe customers -- the vast majority will never buy a Creative Studio app from Adobe. Most are stuck in corporate h***. Most of those at home have MS Works, not even MS Office. If they own an Adobe app at all, it's Adobe Elements (until iPhoto ships for Windows later this year).

In the creative development world, Macs own more marketshare. Probably still way over Windows, although they've dropped some due to cheap PCs being considered a bargain by cheap companies, who then pay more for color correction on their printing.

Adobe is more likely to stop producing Windows versions of CS and tell people to just buy a Mac for running both systems than to abandon Mac users just because a subset of Intel-Mac owners want to dual-boot.

Remember that Microsoft makes more money selling Mac users Office than it makes selling Windows operating systems to PC owners.

Apple is a HARDWARE company.. the more units they ship, the more money they make. they make little to no money on software & OS's.

And if even a small percentage of users boot to OSX over Windows, then you have a nice little switchers batch.

eldarkkus! YOU need to remember that Apple is a hardware AND SOFTWARE company. Implying they are just a HARDWARE company is idiotic. Apple sells one box for say 1500. it comes with the OS. now being that the box will last you a good 4 years or whatever, you telling me that apple software isn't being purchased and installed in it? Within the lifetime of the computer the amount of apple apps bought for it can come to at least even with the amount of the hardware price. OS upgrades within 4 years, new applications, professionals buying Apples' pro apps. The software is a HUGE market for apple, and you are ignoring that. And on another note, Adobe and other apple developers don't just develop software so that it runs on a chip. They develop software that fits in with the particular type of environment. Just because you can run windows on the same computer, DOES NOT mean the applications are the same beast. The technologies and integrated features of OS X are exactly the same on the intel macs as they are for the ppc ones. Changing the chip doesn't mean the OS is gunna be worse, or different. And it is those integrated features an tech that keep os x and macs in the graphics business, and sets them apart from the windows verisons. All this means is that now Adobe and other windows developers wont have to do much low level hardware coding to make it work on the new chip. Its A LOT easier to make software run on a different OS, than it is to make it run on a different OS, and on a different chipset.

Wine is NOT a windows emulator. It is an implementation of the Windows Application Programming Interface that allows you to run windows applications, and actually has no Microsoft code in it (actually debatable, since most of MS code is not seen by anyone, no one knows! coincidences may happen lol) MS code isn't in the main program at all, but you may use MS code in the form of DLL's that some installers may need. But the actual prog has none.

This will definitely change the game. Apple is the only company with a mainstream operating system that is rock solid and powerful as h*** that the geeks and the rest of society can use. society aint ready for linux just yet, so that don't count. All the other box makers better watch out because now Apple is in their gaming field side stepping around corners and packed with the best weapons and shields. Apple has literally the best hardware in the world, and the best software as well. and with this, if you can run windows on a mac WITH Apple's support (not of windows, but of using windows) now there is no reason except price. And even that is quickly becoming a non issue. No other box maker sells their own OS, and even the OS they have bundled with their boxes is junk. Apple is going to become a bigger key player in the computer market, slowly tossing out the c***. This is a great thing for apple.

Apple is not supporting running Windows on their Macs.

They won't even support running Boot Camp.

They are only providing it for people who want to take the risk on their own.

People.. use your brains.. Boot Camp is a beta preview of a feature of Leopard.

When this is moved to release stage, I wager you will be able to run Windows XP (or Vista) or some other flavour of UNIX/Linux as a virtual machine CONCURRENTLY with Mac OS X and you will be able to share a clipboard between the environments.

This is a huge step forward. There are thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) who will now be able to buy Apple Mac for the look and feel and still run "the operating system that won't get you fired."

Don't get me wrong. I love MacOS. I can't see the day when I would willingly run Windows on any personal machine... Windows is as far from the elegant Mac OS X as a Yugo is compared to a BMW M5 series.

As a reseller, pitching medical software that runs entirely in Java on PeeCees or Macs with equal functionality, I am convinced that Boot Camp... and the final release versions to come.... will make it far easier to sell and install iMac Core Duo and other intel Macs in places where HPs and Dells have always gone before.

Apple will support BootCamp, else it couldn't be integrated into Leopard (and it's been said publically that it is a part of Leopard). Therefor, Apple will only troubleshoot Mac OS problems and problems using Boot camp to partition or boot the Windows Installer CD, outside that you are on your own. If you send the unit in for service, it will come back with Mac OS. Apple will not pre-partition the systems for immediate dual-boot, nor offer windows-only booting. To say they won't support Boot Camp is just asanine.

I don't expect this to have a major impact on the Mac applications market, in that there are many firms making a living from OS/X development already.

As one article had it - it's a smaller market, but with more opportunity because there is less competition (and Obj-C developers rate Cocoa).

Adobe or anyone doing cross-platform apps could also have pulled out and told their customers to go Windows a long time ago. The transition to OS-X would have been the logical point to do so.

It's missing the point though. Firstly, they still make millions from Mac customers - and those are the Mac faithful, not switchers. They are the people who went to Final Cut Pro when Adobe pulled Premier (and Adobe are now bringing it back).

Secondly, it makes sense from a strategic point of view, even if there was no money in it. It prevents a rival application from getting a foothold in your marketplace.

Thirdly - consider Camino, NeoOffice, Seashore - all OS/X specific ports of open source software that already runs on OS/X but just doesn't 'feel Mac'. It's a big issue. It probably is pretty much the death of Mac games though, because that's a very different market (Mac users may play games but few people buy Macs to play games - equally people want games to run the SAME on Macs and PCs, wheras they want their applications to run DIFFERENTLY). Oh, and it might be the end of MS Virtual PC.

And I think Apple put out BootCamp as a probe for users and the market. When Leopard ships probably it would integrate virtualization with enterprise administration tools in the server version of the OS, like ESX but in virtualization not emulation (add an XServe with processors supporting VT from Intel, that means a farm that costs dollars less than a competing hw from Dell in terms of licenses). The story is that if you want run Windows or Linux (yes you can with BootCamp, I've tried Suse Linux 10) you must boot in Leopard and use it as the primary client or server OS.

I repeat it is a probe.

I must say that I'm very concerned about this direction. There are lots of examples of software which is currently Windows only. This move makes it unlikely we will ever get this software ported to Mac OS X. Now, companies can simply ship Windows software since *every* shipping PC will support that OS by the end of the year, but only a small percentage support Mac OS X.

.... but it will be the money of the creative CUSTOMERS of Adobe demanding OSX versions of CS that will keep Adobe a Mac developer for years to come.

Sure a company that only thinks one year down the road might give up on Mac versions for short term operational cost cutting, but one that has plenty of resources and installed user bases, like MS and Adobe will not give up on THAT income.

Mac OS X developers will continue to do so because there will be more Mac hardware sold and therefore more Mac OS X around. Adobe will continue to see 40% of their business comming from Mac users. As a web developer I have good reason to run both OS's (BBedit on Mac and IE on WinDoze). This is good for Apple and good for OS X developers. I have been buying Apple stock as it dropped and will be cashing in in about 6 months (at $95).

Don't forget, there's a serious benefit to Adobe only needing to support one architecture. It's far easier to make architecture-dependent speed improvements for one ISA instead of two. Their UI model (unless I'm mistaken) is already cross-platform.

So, what I'm saying is, Mactel makes Photoshop for Mac less expensive for Adobe to produce. That they're already saving money actually secures the future of Photoshop on the mac, not weakens it. They've got a significant following on the platform, so why not stick with it if the profits go up?

Yikes..... This is the first step into Apple becoming a media only company like SONY. They will make some computer hardware but be more interested in cell phoned MP3 players and home theater systems.

I hope everyone likes minimizing their windows from the right side and not the left.

I'm thinking Final Cut Studio for XP...

then

Games will be first......Adobe Second....

This is a clear sign that we've lost the OS battle and am joining the emprire.

I'm prepping my Virus Protection now...and boosting my knowledge of the registry.

3 yrs to XP main boot on Apple hardware.....

Trust me....

Apple is winning the battles that will lead to winning the war.

1. Delivered outstandingly cool hardware design and OS features. 2. Demolished the objections of PC users over Mac: "can't play games," "limited software," "need Windows apps for work," "one-off HW design -- not universal components."

Now mainstream Windows users don't have to switch OS's to have the cool of Apple for their CPU, and will quietly explore the benefits of Mac OS --not quite yet "side by side," but still on the same nifty CPU.

Listen folks, the VAST majority of Windows users are people who use it at work, and later got it at home because they could get a low-end eMachines box from CompUSA or Best Boy for a few hundred bucks. I've spent countless hours fielding requests from people who have bought these systems for as much as $800 USD, and then are frustrated by the demo or feature-disabled "light" versions of the software they thought they were getting to handle their photos, videos, and music. They want solutions, but now can't afford a Mac even less than they might have when they bought it. Since they already have "a computer" at home, they don't shop for a new one, Mac or PC. The cable modem sits in a dark room with lights a blinking while they watch HBO.

Only when they witness the tight integration of Mac apps and the OS (and at all levels, professional as well as consumer) do the fervent Windows owners start to shake their heads and say, "that's pretty neat." And when they can do it on the same CPU that runs Windows with the best of them, it's a win-win situation.

Gradually, they'll find that they use Windows less and less. They'd rather shell out $49 for an upgrade to iLife 07 than buy another lame application to try and install on Windows on their iMac.

And that will drive software developers--who have said for years that they love the Mac, but the numbers don't justify the cost--to devevlop more and more for the Macs people love, than the Windows-only CPUs that people love to hate.

You'd have to be sitting in your underware in the dark with blinders on to not see this as a huge blow against Dell and HP, and the beauty is, Microsoft can't/won't fight it because it will help sell Windows and Office apps to Mac owners like never before.

Everyday we sit on the edge of the future, but today it just looks better.