We can finally see some comparable benchmark results against Windows based machines. I'm getting sick of using DVD rundown tests.

Sheer ridiculous speculation, no facts, are you sure you aren't smarthome.com.au?

I'm inclined to belive that Apple's motives if the above is true it to increase its marketshare. If OS X and Windows can run on Macs, consumers will have a clear choice. Go Apple Go!

The fact is, Apple has joined a previously Windows-only benchmarking consortium. I think Joel's speculation, while clearly speculation, is perfectly valid.

What's so special about this? Lots of computers (Linuxes, BSDs) can run Windows applications under Wine; and they didn't even pay to join a consortium. Pehaps it's Apple's goal to be the only licensed/legal windows-capable BSD; shich sucks.

I think that In the near future apple will switch to a Microsoft OS's and will dedicate their efforts only in the hardware.

I think that hAnimal doesn't understand "I think"

So there!

I'm sorry but for all those dvorak followers that believe Mac will switch to Windows Or for OS you were plotting to kill the anti-trust judge who wanted to split M$ up this is for you. Heres the skinny! Apple makes hardware to support their software it SUPPORTS it! Not the other way around. Ipods were built to fuel the itunes softwae, not the other way around. Same with OSX and the hardware. If you think that the Apple hardware is built by apple, well you might want to do some research, they choose which parts to put in but they don't make the processor and video card. That being said without the software Apples are overpriced pc's with a little bit of class. Its OSX that makes it so appealing. Hardware was always used as a means to manage the users experience. This is so you don't have unexpected bsod or the equivalent. Apple is making all these headways towards Windows to lure ppl to better choice, while not having to give up what they already know. (and for that fact have to buy all new softare) Apple will NEVER move to an inferior OS, let alone Windows. Its just common sense. S-

Seems more likely that Apple will be benchmarking Mac OS versions of the programs vs. Windows versions (running on Dells, Compaqs, etc). Then again, I'm not retarded, as you clearly are.

Apples computers are so expensive because there hardware is tuned and more stable, and Mac os runs only on it because they dont have to worry about supporting a bunch of other shit hardware wise....sure i guess its cool you can now put win XP on it but its a waste.. i used to use windows, but after using it sience i was 5 i deamed it sucked and switched to apple at 17. macs run better and are more reliable.

Apple isn't just about the hardware, the Macintosh OS is what made Apple. Because the hardware is now becoming the same as Windows, they need the OS to differentiate. I don't think anyone would want to spend extra money for a ritzy case if they can get the same performance on a Dell. Apple will get a lot of pissed Macheads sending threats to their inboxes. I love the Mac OS and want them to continue to improve upon it because Windows is crap.

iTunes was written to drive to the iPod, not the other way around.

final!

you might want to check the specs on using the apple logo ... the way you have it jammed in there doesn't meet their guidelines ;)

Am I missing something here? The BAPCo official site (http://www.bapco.com/about.html) doesn't show the Apple logo anywhere. This looks like a miserable photoshop job with hopes of stirring up the rumour pot. This is ridiculous.

Brad, you didn't read the note. Note: this is not an official splashscreen; we cobbled it together by adding an Apple logo to the member list.

Am I missing something here? The BAPCo official site (http://www.bapco.com/about.html) doesn't show the Apple logo anywhere. This looks like a miserable photoshop job with hopes of stirring up the rumour pot. This is ridiculous. did you read the end of the article? it says "Note: this is not an official splashscreen; we cobbled it together by adding an Apple logo to the member list."

I actually wasn't to shocked to hear that Leopard would have virtualisation support in it, but I am shocked by the distinct impression that I might be one of the few people left who remembers that one of the selling points that early Apple PC's had for businesses was that they could run both Mac and PC software on the same machine; they just took that feature out at about the same time that PC clones started cropping up. I really think that now that they have the home entertainment sector pretty locked for their computers, it's by re-introducing these business-centered features that Apple will be able to significantly increase their market, and thereby (hopefully) have more resources to make even greater innovations in the future

I am shocked by the distinct impression that I might be one of the few people left who remembers that one of the selling points that early Apple PC's had for businesses was that they could run both Mac and PC software on the same machine I think you're confusing MacOS with OS/2 from IBM. You people are reading way too much into this. Apple probably just wants to get those benchmarks ported so they can do straight Windows versus OS X benchmarks using the same hardware.

You people are reading way too much into this. Apple probably just wants to get those benchmarks ported so they can do straight Windows versus OS X benchmarks using the same hardware. Jon said it best! I don't doubt that one day OS virtualization will become an every day thing but I doubt that it is Apple's reasoning for joining BAPCO. Thats not to say that it won't be in the next OS, because I've been saying ever since they got into bed with Transitive (the company responsible for Rosetta) that virtualization has been their intent from the get go.

Why speculate? Just wait and see what Apple will do in the near future. Doesn't matter if its software for hardware or the other way around, if you like Apple, you like Apple, no matter what Apple does. =)

Without OS X, Apple would just be making expensive boxes - the OS is what makes a Mac. Intel's new chips are supposed to be able to run OSes simultaneously - maybe this is to do with that. OS X is too developed and advanced to be kicked into the roadside.

Why speculate?!?!?! The Windoze world has sat bemused at the fanboy fanaticism of Apple-ites for years ... now Steve's RDF is being aimed squarely in the web-o-sphere and editorial boards of crusty PC-centric media outlets, with the hardware to back up the promise of the OS, and you ask why speculate?!?!?!?! The PC world is used to speculating about how many viruses and malware programs will arise after each new Windows release or speculate about what over-color-saturated blueness will hide an Apple innovation in the clothes of an MS "innovation" or whether Balmer will finally just crack and admit that they ran countless companies into the ground with illegal practices or whether Bill will show off another tablety thing that is too heavy and doesn't reallly do anything ... even on stage when it was prep'ed to do something .... Those are the only things PC users have had to speculate about. Now with Apple moving to center stage, they will finally learn what REAL speculation is!!

Why speculate?!?!?! The Windoze world has sat bemused at the fanboy fanaticism of Apple-ites for years ... now Steve's RDF is being aimed squarely in the web-o-sphere and editorial boards of crusty PC-centric media outlets, with the hardware to back up the promise of the OS, and you ask why speculate?!?!?!?! The PC world is used to speculating about how many viruses and malware programs will arise after each new Windows release or speculate about what over-color-saturated blueness will hide an Apple innovation in the clothes of an MS "innovation" or whether Balmer will finally just crack and admit that they ran countless companies into the ground with illegal practices or whether Bill will show off another tablety thing that is too heavy and doesn't reallly do anything ... even on stage when it was prep'ed to do something .... Those are the only things PC users have had to speculate about. Now with Apple moving to center stage, they will finally learn what REAL speculation is!!

a better way would be to create a Cocoa Virtualisation layer for Windows. This way developers would have the choice of writing in Obj-C using Cocoa and having access to Mac and Windows Users, or only writing in C++ or C# or whatever and Win32 or .NET and only having access to Windows Users. One codebase is cheaper than two, and (arguably) Obj-C is easier to write in. I could eventually see a version of XCode for Windows, which can write Portable Code and even cross-compile (or create fat Binaries Mac-PPC/Mac-Intel/Win-Intel).

Actually, SwiftX, Apple is a hardware company. They make superior software to support their superior hardware. A very large portion of OS X (GUI aside) is open source, meaning that MS could very well use it, if they were willing to abide by the licensing restrictions (which are few). However, that aside, I agree with the opinion that Apple is unlikely to move to Windows anytime soon. I believe that running Windows better than other machines, and being able to dual-boot a beautiful OS with a necessary one (many people have applications that only run on Windows) will simply give them an edge in that more people will be willing to migrate. For myself, it was a hard choice, since my games don't run under OS X, and though I eventually made the jump (and love it) benchmarks showing that Apple hardware runs Windows better than other hardware will be the impetus many others need.

You people need to do a little research of your own. Apple hardware using CoreDuo is virtually the same as peecee counterparts, and include other elements in addition to OS X, such as the suite of applications, built in ability to create everything from DVDs to conferencing, including the camera. There isn't a "Celeron" in the bunch, nor is their "ProTron" screens to go along with the products. Compare Apple products of the same content to Sony or Dell, and you'll find you get similar engines, with standard features that are upgrades on peecees and applications that simply don't exist without buying them as add-ons for the machines. These aren't the days of the $5000 Macintosh. Macintosh Minis can be had, in G4 vintage for $325 new, and the new Minis, with remote control, etc., are $599. The 17" iMac is a CoreDuo machine with D/L DVD, remote control, an exceptional screen, remote control, full wireless 802.11G/BT, Gigabit eNet, the iSight camera built in, the latest Mac OS and all the iApps that are integrated with the hardware to create the seamless user experience that Apple has always been known for, as well as much I've surely left out. Find all of that on any machine for $1100. If you want to compare "Apples to Apples" - stop trying to do it with lemons.

I would think about switching to OSX if I could run Win2k3+OSX at same time. People forget that there is WAY more software for Windows than OSX, which is the deciding factor for me (and many others) -- critical mass. Once I can go to any random website and find that their one executable for download isn't just Windows compatible, I might follow ship.

By ensuring that MS apps can always run on a mac, whether through virtualisation or dual booting, Apple will launch it's assault on the lucrative business laptop/pc market. Wouldn't you love to swap your dull dell for a shiny macbook? You can run your dull work apps in windows and yet have your fun in OS 10.5!

...you'll stop using it. Consider: When Microsoft feels threatened or when they want to take over a market, they do very good work. Why? Because they care. Internet Explorer sucked when MS bought it, but they wanted to take market share from Netscape. To do that they had to take a POS browser and make it unified and useful. The result is that IE became everyone's browser of choice. On the other hand, when MS feels they have a monopoly, they do as little as possible. Witness the lack of concern about IE, witness the continual delays and eviscerations of Longhorn/Vista. Instead of concentrating on Vista, MS has pulled their talent to markets where there is competition, markets like game consoles, attempts to duplicate iTunes, and so forth. Why would MS invest talent and money in a market they can't grow? The world is Windows-saturated and Windows-centric. For example, my college has a "computer literacy" course that is actually a MS literacy course. It covers Windows, IE, Outlook, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access. Nothing that isn't a MS product. People are going to buy Vista, like it or not, because they don't know there's an option, but gamers do know there are options about game consoles so MS puts resources into games. Apple has LOADS of competition for market-share. They produce a beautiful, unified, easy-to-use product that they actually care about. If Apple ever got 95% of the market, they, too would slack off and produce garbage. Stockholders, whose interests are on short-term gains, require it. If you want Windows to shine, let MS know there is competition. They can produce superior products, but only if motivated. drop Windows for a couple of years and MS will be quite motivated. Heck, they'll probably dump Balmer and start delivering products within a year of their intended release, and the products might even include most of the features they were intended to have!

I have to concur that this is only a single step in Apple's plan. Their goal is obviously to increase their market share, but the question is which direction are they heading? Sure they could be leaning towards putting Window's on a Mac, but they could also go the other direction and put OSX on a PC. I think they know more than what we can speculate.

whats ridiculous is that you all see this as such a lucratice business move... whats lucrative? 90% of the market share. aka... M$. guess what, everyone wants to make dollar bills, and apple is no different. all these hipsters (and you nerds) think your chique for using a mac? please, my mom uses a mac. osx is that great? please, hardly any of you really use it for what its worth, and if you did, you would get rid of all the pastel and shiny shit, clicky cuteness and skip right to unix. but then again, youre all posers. all apple wants to do is become microsoft. if they took over the market, itd be cool to run win3.1 and act vintage... get real.

Do such testing standards require Windows-only versions of those apps? I mean, some of the apps concerned exist for OS X too.

If it's anything like Virtual Pc, it will be a waste of time and bytes.

I know plenty of folks who only use PCs because they need to run specific apps like AutoCAD... if they can run these on a Mac, they'd switch immediately... meaning more market share for apple. Beerzie, it wouldnt be anything like Virtual PC... since with an intel chip, windows apps run native. As RMX says above, Wine on Linux, etc runs Windows apps without needing windows... If 10.5 doesnt deliver the ability to run Windows apps, then this port of Wine (still a developer preview) is something to keep tabs on: http://darwine.opendarwin.org/

Why would I pay twice as much for a box that does the exact same thing that I already can do? I understand the love mac users have for their desktops, but why would Apple build Windows drivers for their machines? Would someone really pay a 100% premium for a machine just because it is "mac" hardware? I am kind of hoping that the reverse happens and we see MacOS fully support 3rd party machines and run where only (usually) Windows and Linux run. I am hoping to see MacOS on non-mac hardware. Yes, I have heard of OSx86. Yes I have tried it. But I would like to see official support from Apple. I think they could sell a competitive alternative to Windows for the mainstream PC user and make a lot of money doing so. Agree? Disagree?

You know whats going to happen once this does happen. Its going to attract the attention of the millions of hackers of the PC market to now look at OSX. If OSX does gain a good portion of the market (which will never happen) just for this ability to run Windows on Mac, then you know damn well that OSX will then start seeing a billion security updates just like Windows. Windows Xp is tuned for the mainstream market which is obviously the case since OSX and Linux are both little holes in the wall in the marketshare compared to Windows. Windows out of the box is inferior to the security of Linux or OSX. Windows security can be customized to the certain individual or bussiness. Is there anyone that would like to challenge it's security? Please don't even try to use stability issues in your answer.

People who claim there is not much software available for the Mac are simply not good informed. Yes, there are a lot of apps for windows. But a lot of that is crap you try once and then (try) to delete. Most ppl seem to be afraid not find an alternative on the Mac. You just had to search or ask in a Mac-Forum and in most cases you'd find something better, that does what you want much better. Fact is, there's just less crap on a Mac you can for free on some CDs in a magazine.

You probably want to check with each company whose logo you used on that page you created.. Companies don't usually like you to use their logos without permission.

Apple is letting everyone know that the hardware they're selling is the real deal and can compete [or beat] the Windows-based PCs. I think this is a shrewd and bold marketing move to gain street credit for their boxes. If you can run Windows on it -AND- it runs fast, good. If they can benchmark OS X against Windows on the same hardware, that's another feather in their cap. There's alot to make up for after the "Megahetz Myth" got busted. Now they're comparing apples to apples...pun slightly intended.

It doesn't make sense to me that anyone would want to run Windows on a MAC. But it does make sense for Apple to implement the Windows API under MAC OS. Then non Microsoft software complied for Intel processors would run under OSX. Of course, if anyone used undocumented system calls, they would be out of luck, but we know that never happens. If Apple finds a way to make all the 3rd party software available on OSX, thay remove the main advantage that MS has enjoyed since the 80's Just my humble opinion

I checked with BAPCO and the know nothing of a deal with apple. A further review of the BAPCO website shows proves that apple is not a member. http://www.bapco.com/about.html

As usual the Apple Idiots are freaking out and the MS Idiots are gloating. We are talking about computers. That's all. It's like a hammer and a screw driver; these are tools, only. Grow up....all of you! All of us! Some day we will look back at this squaubbling over computers (of all things) and realize the folly in it. These are passing fads like what Ford was to Chevy in the 50's. For God sakes, get over it. They ALL process 1's and 0's from Macs to PCs, Sun Spark Stations to Unix boxes and all points in between. Who cares about Mac and PC? I've programmed both at the machine language level and they all process commands. DUH!

I was able to purchase 11,000 shares of Apple stock on April 26, 2003 at $13.53 per share. On February 18, 2005 the stock split, and 11,000 shares now becomes 22,000 shares. On June 6, 2005, Mr. Steve Jobs announced Apple's plans to switch to intel CPU's. Man, I was very upset by this to say the least. To date, intel has only had one "bug-free" microprocessor, it is the 80c186, and is still used today in embedded applications and controllers. My attitude about Apple now has changed significantly ever since their announcement to change to intel microprocessors. This was a real shock to many people, as the main reason to use a Mac in the first place is because of the very advanced CPU being used. I waited and kept a close eye on the stock, and on June 24, 2005 it was all sold at $39.06 a share. Now you do the "math"...even though my tax liability last year was a whopping $387,446.42 I will probably never have to work again. Thank you Steve, I'll never use or recommend you're products again!

I see that we've got some crossover readers here from engadget.com. I'll repost one of my comments from there here: Not to burst your bubble, but Ziff Davis Media belongs to BAPCo. I got the information from BAPCo communications, and I've personally confirmed with a BAPCo spokesperson that Apple Computer has in fact joined BAPCo. He also confirmed that Apple's membership could be released as public knowledge. I'd like to chime in on the debate and note that many companies and government agencies require minimum scores on the BAPCo tests (for example a 4 hour minimum battery life score on MobileMark) for approval on purchase orders. It is possible Apple is joining BAPCo to help support current and future business sales. I also agree that it would be nice to get indepenently verified performance scores on Macintosh computers aside from the esoteric SPECint and SPECbase benchmarks. Joining BAPCo could be a way shape future performance benchmark testing and an outlet to verify Apple's performance claims. -Joel Santo Domingo PC Magazine, Gearlog

Well it only makes sense that apple would be moving toward the ability to use a worse operating system like windows xp(vista). They are moving to a worse chip design which they have already made public by going to intel chips. I mean why go to a 64 bit chip when you already have a 128 bit chip. unless you were planning on running something that required a slower chip ie. Windows

Gosh Throckmorton, Apple closed at $62.33 today (3/29/06). If you hadn't gotten your panties in a wad over the Intel move, you'd kept your 22,000 shares and now have $1,371,260.00 instead of the measly $859,320.00 you had to settle for... I love it when everyone thinks of Apple as the little guy based on market share. A company that had a 2005 fiscal year revenue of $13.93 billion isn't a little guy, maybe not the biggest player, but certianly not little! That is like calling Michael Dell (Yes, of DELL computer) POOR because he is only worth $13.93 billion - when mighty Bill Gates is worth $27.38 billion. Poor old Michael Dell. How can he ever survive?

OSXrumors has confirmed that Apple is working on software code-named 'Chameleon' which will bring virtualization capability into "Leopard"...

Thanks for the tip! As you will recall, Apple stock actually hit just over $90.00 per share late last year. As I said, it's was when Mr. Steve Jobs announced Apple's plans to switch to intel CPU's. This alone was the deciding factor, and the interest in the company went south. All of the Mac's in the house have left, use only SUN workstations now, and the uptime's are in years. As you know, Mac OS X uptimes are easily in the same category, however, every once in a while they were shutdown. One of my SUN's has an uptime of just over four years! Life is very good!

It is interesting to note that pre-OSX, iTunes had support for quite a number of MP3 players. However this was also before Apple came out with the iPod. Therefore, it seems feasible that Apple could add support for inferior devices in iTunes just as Mediafour has added iPod support in Windows Media Player via Xplay

I guess we'll see if a Leopard can change its spots. I hope they do something rootless like the classic environment or WINE. The doctors here are mostly Mac users and hate having to use a Windows environment (inside Virtual PC or Citrix) to get access to our clinical databases.

I'll still stick with my Windows based PC no matter what. Any computer is only as good as the software available for it and I don't see much available for the Apple let alone much I'm interested in.

There are many more users of both platforms these days so I see this as a great selling point on Apples part. The mud-slinging die-hards on opposite sides of the isle will continue, but maybe to a lesser degree. It's all about marketing.

Before everyone goes off an a tangent has anyone confirmed this ? There is zero mention of this on the BAPCO web site :)

Here is what I see from this news: The key for apple is to go from 2.5% share to 10% share in PCs. To do this, they must eliminate any real or percieved compatiblity issues. I love apple but since i am starting up a business, i could not "risk" getting an apple in case there was a business critical app, that is not available on apple. So if AAPL can offer their own operating system (which everyone loves), and then the ablity to toggle into windows when need be, they will eliminate the compataiblity issue. THey will also be incredibly differentiated vs. all other pc companies because they can run tiger AND windows. This is a major home run for apple and should be applauded by all appple lovers and msft haters. It is now possible to run windows on mac. hackers have figured this out. But for mainstream use, AAPL needs to develop all the drivers around windows. I THINK THIS IS JUST THE FIRST STEP AND THIS IS A CRUCIAL POINT. Whan apple machines offer BOTH, Apples share will take off.

RE (xenocog): If Apple ever got 95% of the market, they, too would slack off and produce garbage. Has Apple slacked off on iPod innovation just because it has the dominant market share?? Apple is not built that way. There's no guarantee they could slip into complacency if both iPod & Mac had the dominant share of the market, but to compare Apple to how Microsoft has always worked is an insult. Also, Mr. "Throckmorton Q. Milktoast III"... you are just plain "full-of-it"! Nice story... Mr. Thirstin Howell III would have been a better name. Don't go on any 3-hour tours in open waters. You may be lost on an island in the middle of nowhere for a few years. At least your 4-year old Sun will be up and ready for you to get right to work when you get back. I'm sure it's very productive at what it does. ;-)

I'm not the sort to be tempted by snakes, but most of you are missing the point. Which would you rather drive, a Lamborgini or a car that you never heard of before, but now, atleast on paper, has stats that make you think- wow, this car is actually pretty dang cool. Now gas mileage aside, Apple makes computers. That being said, what about the Macintosh? Is it a good computer, great computer, or a pretty dang cool one. I think that this is what all of us need to think about. Let's stop polluting the net with blogs that don't inspire true thought and creativity. As far as Microsoft goes, I'll bet anyone who works their or is devoted to their OS that reads this will be thinking; maybe I should consider buying an Apple or even a Mac. Or should I...

I'm curious: what is this software you miss on the mac?

Er, anyone remember VHS versus BetaMax? In the end it didn't matter and became irrelevant; DVD moved the game on, and that's about to be sniped at by BluRay/Hi-def. The point? it doesn't matter now in the OS/hardware debate either. Fanatics will champion their respective cause. Meanwhile, economic and technology innovation cycles will move the debate on and create new ones to bemoan. Most won't care except those who love to argue.

My suggestion to all harcore fans to one platform or another to chill out. Until you have ran WinXP and MacOSx side by side for few years and compare them you are not in a position to make an educated guess,just so you know they are both stable as they are plagued. The only real way to compare the two enviroments is to us the same value rig, lets say $3000 then compare them in real life use since numbers mean nothing when you comnpare apples with windows. Another way to do it is to load linux on both of them and see its performance. I am running MacOSX on my Sony VAIO and I am looking forward to try WinXP on a iMac, hardware wise the two companies are at par. As for the two OS stability and functionality, well they are as different as apples and windows, since you can do things so easily on MAC but some other tasks native to WinXP are almost imposible and vice versa.

I think Mac allowing users to use either OS X or Windows is a great idea. I mean no other vendor can support OS X and they could also run Windows on machines. Great to get some market share. I think companies would look at Mac's running Windows as well as Mac's running OS X. They can then have one place were they are getting systems. Corporate World is still dominated by Microsoft. Letting the corporate world still use their Windows that they are familiar with while others can use Mac OS X which quite honestly preforms better w/ graphics and video. I think this is smart move. For the person that wrote that the BAPCO looked Photoshoped. Well, yes that is pretty much what they said. Mac has joined according to several sources.

There's Virtual PC now but being able to run Windows at close to native speed would be a boon, especially to web developers testing pages on multiple platforms. Also, look at it the other way around: Apple might be giving Windows users a chance to run Windows and Mac OS X. There's been plenty of people hacking Mac OS X now to run on non-Apple hardware and Apple hasn't been getting anything out of it--why not give users a more legal option? We have hardware that runs Mac OS X and Windows.

...TWO mouse buttons to run Windows on a Mac? It's not gonna work!! ;)

Well I think it would be nice to have another well developed OS to choose from when purchasing a computer. Apple can make the claim to be user friendly just as well as Microsoft. However Linux has a way to go yet. I like the idea of Apple trying to go mainstream instead of proprietary like in the past. This could be a win-win for all!

both microsoft and apple aren't going anywhere. It would take apple 5 to ten years to surplant microsoft's user base, and it's unlikley. I like mac osx better because it's form and function are rooted in an approach which creates an ease of workflow, however with windows, I can bulid it from scratch, it's the devil everyone knows. like exxon and mobile these companies will be around for many years to come. until hybrid computers force everyone to take a second look at what makes a great system, besides fast and cool. mac will do better if the continue to offer great systems at reasonable prices. I see a few bumps in the road for dell and gateway, but maybe apple will switch to AMD down the road and piss everyone off again - cheers!

The missing software argument always surprises me... I have a Powerbook G4 that I have had for 2 years. I work in a Windows environment (networks and software). I have MS Office installed but other than that I don't use anything other than what shipped on my Mac. I access my files on the network, I email documents and spreadsheets to other people, I research on the web, print to printers everything. At home I check my email, use the internet, make movies out of my photos, make DVD's out of my movies to send to friends, video conference with my kids, buy iTunes, download podcasts, chat with people, I could compose music if I wanted to. I use my little 12" laptop about 14 hours a day every day. What am I missing? Oh and two button mouse guy...PLUG ONE IN...IT WORKS.

Obviously there are not too many business majors out there among the OS X geeks. Face the facts: Apple has never made any money off of its software. Steve Jobs has said it himself: Apple always has been a hardware company. It will not be long now before you will be able to buy Apple computers specifically designed to run Windows OS. And why shouldn't they? All they have to do is advertise that their neat, sleek, and cool computers Windows better than anythig else and people will buy it. Whether or not they continue to support and develop the Apple OS is the big question. But any business major can tell you that there are very few companies out there that will continue to make a product that does make them money.

Is it that hard to see, with so many years in the market place, after dominating the graphics and publishing industries for so many years now, is it that hard to see that Apple is really hungry? Apple has stayed alive recently due to the success of the iPod. Apple has to use big show case events to build fan fair to deliver an MP3 player on steroids. What is the BFD with the silly and childish iPod anyway? I predicted a long time ago it was a fad. I may have only been partially correct, there is a genuine market for the iPod, but it too will be replaced. Where is that iPhone? Where is that amazing 30th anniversary release of whatever they have for the new Macs? Where is the big new thing from Apple? Apple is a company that is operated by a man with an ego, one who thinks his own #*! doesn't stink, and that he is a better human being than Bill Gates. Let's see, who donates more money to charity? Who gives more dollars to the educational community? Who donates more to developing nations? Please, all your talk about how inferior Windows is, which is admittedly true when speaking of the legacy operating systems, but truly, give it a rest. Apple is trying very hard to scratch away at Windows, Microsoft, and to gain a little more of the desktop world. With an arrogant ass at the helm Apple is destined to never grow beyond the pathetic 4 or 5 percent of the market that it currently has (give or take a percentage). Vista will soundly trump whatever Apple has to offer, and I believe that is what is driving Apple to move in the Microsoft direction. Oh, one final thought, to the guy who thought Apple would never adopt inferior technology. You may be correct, but Apple has already adopted IDE over SCSI, why was that?

I just purchase a new iBook G4, though I am a windows user for years. Heck, this system is really something.Dump the dull windows with all those annoying pop ups.I will never go back to windows. Apple computers should maintain their genuiness in system.

Over 10 years ago there was a product that (accurately) claimed to "run Windows better than Windows"... IBM's OS/2. Back when Windows 3.1 programs were notorious for creating the BSOD and taking down the entire computer, OS/2 had an amazing "win-os2" subsystem that would create one or multiple virtual Windows environments. The result was that Windows programs and OS/2 programs ran side-by-side, seamlessly. Clipboard, printing... everything worked well enough that the user didn't know which OS any particular program was running. Maybe Win32 and all the various DirectX APIs have evolved to a complexity where this (side-by-side applications) isn't doable, but seriously, back then the OS/2-Windows integration was better than I ever imagined possible, and Steve Jobs seems to make seamless miracles the rule, not the exception.

&spending their ill gotten gains to buy respectability. Brian, the absolute dollar amount given by Gates does not approach the widow's mite. PRG

omg xenocog do you really believe microsoft delayed longhorn vista beecause they dont feel motivated!?!?!lol do you know how much many millions of dollars a year of delay means? phhhhh do you actually think before you post? :s lol

This was promised to happen in OSX, which was talked about years before it's release....

Years ago, I used to sell Macs 'cause I loved the OS but I hate OS X so I have bought my first PC. OS X is just so much like Windows that it really doesn't matter what you use - except the fact that a PC is half the price. I know several people who have given up on Macs and gone to Windows. If it weren't for the iPod, iTunes and the Music Store, Apple would be in deep, deep trouble.

has anyone tried Parallels Workstation for Mac OS X beta?

To all of you dumbasses out there here is the real scoop. For years people with macs have challenged others to hack into their computers without success even with substantial rewards offered ($40K). Steve Jobs has been told to make macs more vulnerable like the swiss cheese microsoft os so that people can be monitored, remember the 15 year old up in Montreal who shut down yahoo? Welcome to the real world, you get what you pay for, I have a workstation $2500 running W2K a few years old still running without problems except the hours I spend weekly protecting from hackers and a 1 year old laptop ($1500) with xp that's a piece of junk that has trouble with word. It's the graphics card that makes the difference in performance and cost. You all want game performance but you don't want to pay for it so live with your 1/2 price PC nightmares, if macs ran the software I use I'd throw my pc's away. If you want to run secure find a mac without intel inside. OSX is still much better than xp which stands for eXtra petite on performance. Since according to Jon Stewart we are $9 Trillion in the hole it's time to read Margaret Atwood's the Handmaids Tale.

If Apple dropped the Mac OS, there would be a record surge in annual suicide attempts (I know, I'm being overly dramatic, but you get my point). Oh, and the "m" in "mini" is not supposed to be capitalized.

You sound like major morons going back and forth on this. I can speculate they'll cure cancer and they can if they really wanted to. Hell I bet we could even cure A.I.D.S. if everone wanted it cured. They don't and they won't, It's money honey! Apple is sucking up PC users left and right. Their new ads are stupid as hell. Every OS can get a virus! They just called out the dogs. I hope they can run fast. Every pirate in the world is going to try them now. Way to go Apple. "Hi I'm Apple, Im immune to viruses." That was the stupidest mistake since not equipping the Titanic with enough life boats for every passenger. Trust me. Question; If Boot Camp writes a cd with drivers for whatever config Intel Mac you own now why can't they get chipset drivers for newer non-Apple x86 boards and hardware? It's not a question if it is possible, it is. It's a question of does Apple want clones again? Shit If I knew that I would know what to do with some Apple stock boy. So lets leave it as it is until I see OS X on Wal-Marts shelves. Ooops, I didn't have Wal-Marts permission to use their name in a thread oh my, I'm extremely scared and shaking now. Watch out the logo and copyright NAZIS are in drones here. I bet they all have bootlegged movies you bunch of hips!

You idiots think that Apple is really that much more immune to virus'? Just like Outlook Express to Outlook, everyone thinks that Outlook is MUCH more secure than express, when in actuality the only reason more virus' enter through Express is because most of them are made to enter through Express. The same goes with Apple and it's horrendous 3% market share. DOC is right, if they keep trying the virus makers, they are going to have an nice surprise in the near future.

Here it is, boys and girls. What is Apple doing? Why is Apple doing it? What does all this mean? Apple might add virtualization to OS X for one reason and one reason only. To run Windows apps without Wine, Virtual PC, Citrix, you name it. The point is to tap into the market where the IT manager at a medium or large corporation wants to deploy Macs for a certain department because that dept wants to use a few Mac OS apps. But the company has an investment in enterprise applications that are Windows only. Currently these IT Managers either try to find some inferior Windows equivalent application and try to force that dept to use it or they get the Macs and spend alot of money on some kind of SLOW and unstable Virtual or Remote desktop solution to allow those Mac users to run the one or two Windows apps they need. With virtualization the IT Managers can deploy the Macs knowing that the Windows apps will run without a performance hit and they can feel protected by the Mac OS stability. Now I know what you are all going to say, "Mac OS is not more stable" but in fact it is and I'll tell you why. Isolation of the application layer from the interface layer is where its at. Mac OS does NOT allow applications running in the user space to access the root or the hardware directly. This level of protection is what keeps viruses from spreading to damage core OS components, prevents applications that encounter problems from taking down the kernel, and protects against spyware and adware from installing themselves without user authorization. Of course this level of protection is supposedly being added to the next release of Windows but it is late, delayed, further delayed, feature reduced, over priced, and licensed to the point of strapping a company for cash. People are fed up with Microsoft's licensing but feel held hostage by the applications they need to run for business operation. So what does Apple want? To creep, not dive, not shove, but creep into that corporate market with the ability to play on both sides of the field. Now some of you say Apple is only a small market share compared to Microsoft so what makes them so special. Its not about taking down Microsoft or becoming the dominate OS in the industry, its about increasing market share enough to make a profit. Apple has increased from 4% to nearly 8% market share in the last 4 years. That's a 100% increase in customer base. So what if its still insignifcant compared to MS, its still doubling in size! Huge profits, huge returns. Now there is this talk of viruses... yes Apple has viruses. There I said it, lets all calm down now. They are not immune and Apple has never claimed to be. Rather by the nature of the OS design, viruses are less devastating and therefore not as much of a threat to Macs. The recent ad says there 114000 viruses for Windows but not for Macs. This is true because of two reasons. 1: Why waste your time on only 8% of the market. And 2: Why waste your time on something signifcantly more difficult to figure out resulting in less effectiveness. Now to this rant about software driving hardware and vice verse. The iPod was invented to make money. iTunes was invented to make money. The iTunes Music store was invented to... you guessed it... make money. And boy has it. 1 billion dollars in sales in less than 3 years? It is a cash cow! When Apple set out to make the iPod the plan was already there. They had every intention of making iTunes and the Music Store before the first prototype of the iPod kicked out a tune in the lab. The same can be said for this virualization. Apple started making making the code changes in OS X way before talks with Intel began. The plan was put in motion a long time ago. Make the OS support both chipsets. Make the transition to the Intel platform. Get customers used to running Windows and Mac OS on the Mac hardware (thanks boot camp). Then allow Mac OS to run Windows apps. Reap the benefits of doubling market share again. So where this leaves us is Apple will do what it does best, provide a stable and consitent user experience with the best hardware available. Microsoft will do what it does best, try to accomodate anything and everything possible thereby not being the best at anything. But making alot of money along the way. The hackers and virus developers will do what they do best, try to make our lives miserable by attacking whoever is on top at the moment. And I will do what I do best, continue to ramble about irrelevant crap to people who probably don't listen or care.

There is an old rule, as hard as stone: the average systems programmer can handle only 1.1 operating systems. Not 2 or 3. Only 1.1 If a consumer has only one program for which the Mac has to be booted in Windows, then OS X will just not get used and the "shining differences" will not be noticed. And I don't need to tell you what system would be booted by a consumer who already had invested in a lot of Windows software before buying a Mac. I have not bought an Intel Mac because I have thousands of Euros worth of OS X / G5 software that will run lousily on Intel.

The only comment I have is a general one about forums like these. It's amazing to me that if someone's opinion differs to that of their own then people start calling them retards or insulting them for holding a different belief or opinion. Please stop it and let's have a sensible discussion. That's what these forums are for after all, discussion, not insults.

I highly doubt Leopard will include virtualization technology. If someone loads Parallels, and it for whatever reason kills their system, Apple gets to say "hey, you installed third party software...tough crap." If they have a built in virtualization solution and it kills/corrupts the Mac side, people are going to be calling them and demanding new machines. That can get expensive.

I have applications that only run on OSX and there are no passable XP substitutes. My work uses XP only programs. When I travel for work I either have to take only my work computer and not utilize my downtime, or take 2 computers (my bag is already heavy enough) I have used both operating systems and both hardware platforms side by side for 5 years and here is what I have found. Dell is *#^%# but my ASUS laptop is every bit as good as my iBook. OSX has crashed 4 times in 5 years, and I have 3 systems running it. XP crashes about once a month, which is much better than 98!!! I am on my second battery on my Asus laptop at 15 months, I am still getting 3 hours on my G3 iBook which gets more use than the Asus and I have had it for 5 years! My Favorite FPS plays a little faster on my XP laptop running on a 1.8 gHz p4 than it does on my 700 mHz G3, but I take them both to a LAN party so that the guy who doesn't want to disassemble his desktop can play. What it boils down to is they both work and I have to use the XP system for work so I am looking forward to a dual core Intel based laptop that I can run both operating systems on for when I travel, and I still plan on getting a quad g5 for the audio applications as the g5 gives priority to audio and other time sensitive processes where the Intel chips give priority to every little thing that causes audio to glitch! Here is the way I see it. " OSX is more stable than XP " XP is more stable than 98 and 95 " 95 is more stable than 98 " Old DOS is more stable than all of them " ME is less stable than the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in a high wind. " UNIX was developed with multiprocessing in mind " XP is just getting around to that " All systems attached to a network are able to be hacked, but most hackers are not like the great hackers in the movies, and thus target easy systems. " Windows can be made tough to hack, but most home users are not network security professionals and most home systems are pretty easy to hack. " OSX is difficult to hack in its out of the box state, but a user can shut down the security as much as he wants and end up wide open. " There are more programs available for XP " There are good OSX options for most types of programs " There are a few programs like Autocad and some real estate software that are only available on PC " Most companies have some sort of software they use that will only run on XP " Many websites design their code so that you have to use the newest version of IE on XP only or it won't work. " Office is available on OSX " Sometimes office files save from OSX will not look right on the XP version " Sometimes Office files save on one version of office will not look right when you run the update! " OSX cannot see an NT drive " XP cannot see a UNIX or Apple formatted drive " They both see flash drives and FAT 32 drives " iTunes doesn't do WMA " WMP doesn't do AAC " Both WMA and AAC have locked songs purchased from music vendors " Both WMP and iTunes will play open files and rip your collection without locking it " People who like Apple and OSX like the stability and usability, only a few are in it for the looks " People who like windows have many different reasons to like windows " You can get an XP system for super cheap " You can get an Apple for almost super cheap, but there are no cheap consumer level chips in an Apple " If you get a PC with the same components as an Apple you will most likely spend more " If you get your memory upgraded from the dealer where you get the computer instead of fry's you will pay an awful lot, but you wont have to put it in! " If you build a computer yourself you will have to purchase an operating system. OSX is less expensive unless your friend works at Micro Soft, then you get XP pro for 30 bucks!

All this talk about apple opening itself up to the so called virus priates is a load of bull. Most of the virus pirates are little boys in their underwear playing around, they don't have what it takes to do major damage as for the more advanced pirates out there, I suppose they could try but I don't think it would be as easy as it would be with Microsucks. Also keep in mind that even if Apple were subject to virus, it would spit out a new update as fast as you can create a virus for the mac thereby eventually making it more harder to get through its protective suit of macarumor, hence, virus proof, hack proof, bullet proof is it possible ? Yes it is If it took a virus priate 1000 hours to create a virus for the mac, it would be a waste of time, so creating a more protective system that would take them hours and hours to figure how to get through will just wear them then again and again, I think Macs rule in everyway and one day we'll see Microsucks go down the drain

I have one application which i copied on USB on windows machine and mount that on the Mac OSX 10.5. Now i want to run that application but application has only read access and thats why i can not run the application and also i can not change the permission of the application. How I can run my applicaion from the USB ?