Windows Drivers for Mac Rolling Out 522
OSXpert writes "Sure, we all know that Windows can now run on intel Apple Computers. Alas, the solution does not include drivers, and until now Mac users could still only hope to be able to use every application available to their Windows counterparts. However, with drivers now working 100% on the Mac Mini and drivers for the MacBook Pro only lacking video (which, by the looks of the 2nd link is only days away), Mac users now have a complete and working Windows solution."
iBook user says... (Score:4, Insightful)
And I know this thread will just consist of - "why would you want to do that?" "Whats the point, when your running OS X? It's so much better..."
Shut up. This is a good thing. Many people need to use Windows for work, and this lets do that. Whilst giving them the good stuff at home. Many people like to play computer games that aren't photshop.
Don't be stupid. Please.
Please!
Because you *can*. (Score:5, Insightful)
Asking "Why would you?" is aking to shoving your head in the sand and asking "Why would you run a Mac?" Sure, go ahead and limit your choices. I'll be taking one from *every* column, thanks.
arrrg (Score:5, Insightful)
1)Why not? It's geeky, it's fun, it's what being a nerd is all about.
2)Games. What if you want to be productive on OSX but want to reboot to play some win-only games every so often
3)tax software. This is a big one for this, why bother buying a win machine for something you do once a year when you can just install win on your nice mac.
4)Some people honestly like apple hardware but need to run windows. Try finding a non-apple box with as small a desk footprint as a mac mini.
5)Along the same lines, people who do all their work on laptops and dont want to carry 2 laptops around can now just carry a macbook pro.
6)Quick compatability checks for software. Yes, I realize that for major cross platform dev you might want 2 boxes, but for quick checks (see the laptop comment too) this is invaluable.
There are more of course, thats off the top of my coffee-depirved head right now.
~Anubis
Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
I like the idea - the hardware is nice, I like the OS, but I'm not 100% certain that the programs I use some of the time has been ported to OS X or if it has a usable counterpart on OS X. Lack of something like WINE makes this a viable option, should I choose to get a Mac (looking dreamily at the MacBook Pro).
I'd get nice hardware, an excelent OS and the option of still using the old and busted OS and irreplacable programs if I need them. Best of all parts I think.
Re:Counterproductive? (Score:3, Insightful)
DirectX ensures that no operating system will ever run games quite as well as Windows will, unless game developers drop DirectX. (which they should do, considering that OpenGL + SDL can mean that almost no code changes would be necessary to compile a game for almost any platform)
Good for Developers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Geez Guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Options are never bad!
one more time...
Options are never bad
Just like I know I shouldn't put regular gas in a porche... I want the thing to run on it in case of an emergency.
Re:Counterproductive? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with being an Alternate OS user, regardless of preferred OS, is that Microsoft is still the 2 ton Gorilla in the professional sector. I have worked in companies as a UNIX Admin that expected me to do my entire set of job functions from an NT Workstation with Putty. I'm sorry, that just seems wrong to me. Their excuse? "We need to be able to have a singular desktop for the entire company that has the ability to roll out updates and security fixes from the Administrator."
The point is, if you are working for a company where computers are in daily use, chances are Windows is there. Many corporations use Exchange for their email / calendar / project planning systems. There is no easy way to access these stores on a Mac. Even Microsoft's own Entourage doesn't come ready equipped to talk to Exchange, and needs fixes, and even a third party adapter. So Outlook needs to be run. Virtual PC has been in use for a while for just this reason. Because, let's face it, VPC didn't ever really do games well. It was to gain access to certain corp apps that "your" boss tells you that you must use.
As a disclaimer, I must tell you that I am an Apple share holder. I have only Macs in my home. However, at work, I must use an XP machine. No ifs, no ands, and certainly no buts. Though my management would not listen to this plea, there are those that can now go to their boss and say "I need a new laptop, this laptop comes in high in all marks and respects, is competitively priced and I can pick one up today that will let me even check our web page / graphics / whatever for Mac users." That can be an important sale point to a manager that only has the stipulation of "It must run Windows to interoperate."
Re:Don't run your car on railroads.......... (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer (Score:3, Insightful)
To prove that you can. A lot of Slashdot is about that. "Because you can" answers a lot of Slashdot questions. Why modify your case to look like a Borg cube? Why port Linux to your PDA?
Hacking is about curiosity, first and foremost. And there was a question out there...how much like a PC are the new x86 Macs? And running Windows on it answers the question with authority.
Re:Counterproductive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, a geeky part of me wants to dual boot just because I can, but in my field, having a dual boot machine just makes sense. I can run the Mac for my day to day stuff, and launch Windows when we need to troubleshoot some odd scientific software package designed for DOS that they are still using (happens a lot more then people realize), or when I need to run specialized software like Datatel locally; as remote desktop has made that need even less of a need.
It also means that I have trimmed my office computer budget. One Mac Book Pro, although a little pricey, is much cheaper then an iBook and a Windows laptop ($1000 for the iBook, $1300 for the PC laptop we have stanardized on). $2300 total compared to the $1800 for my MBP.
Honestly, I think there are 3 camps of people.
1. Geeks who want to try this out
2. People like me, who could actually benefit from it
3. People who want the PC games
Of the above list, I think group 1 will tire of it quickly. Group 2 has the most to gain from this. Group 3 should really wait for DarWine or Qemu, but for the short term, this will work for them.
Just my $0.02
--nutz
Re:iBook user says... (Score:2, Insightful)
I see your point and can appreciate where you are comming from. However, in this case, semantics are important. People do not need to use Windows at work, they are required to. The longer you allow someone to use a crutch, the longer they will use it - even if it is not really necessary anymore.
My problem with this is the same problem that other people (and myself) have with the Wine project on Linux (I have nothing but good stuff to say about Wine in terms of its technical merit - my problem with it is social).
Can things really be that different. (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes, but why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Tired argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:iBook user says... (Score:2, Insightful)
But this brings an interesting point. If people duel boot Windows for work and OS X for life, then there may be a switch over at work. "Hmmm, I think I will do this presentation Keynote, why not." It creates a mac presence in the work place. Which has to be good.
Yes, THIS. (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway, having said that, let me say this one last time:
Some.
People.
NEED.
Windows.
Nobody's said that this is being done because Mac OS is inferior or anything of the sort. The only big reason is because there are people who are stuck on Windows boxes for work or other mission-critical applications that they simply cannot live without. Before you, for the so-manyth time, complain that this is nonsense and that people should just use Mac OS if the possibility exists, consider the fact that not everybody is as carefree as you and that there could be very good reasons that simply don't apply to you.
Re:Because you *can*. (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand why one would want to have a triple boot machine... that sounds very nice. But as far as finding a company that would allow you to buy one with company funds, use a hack to get Windows running, and then install the software they own on a computing platform that they don't support is unrealistic at best.
Re:Hurray! (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny - but a terrible example.
Sure - a porsche looks cool, but if you're just going to the shops, its nicer to have a fuel range of 21 - 35 MPG [fueleconomy.gov] rather then porsche's 17 - 25 MPG [fueleconomy.gov]
I'd rather have a porsche, but if I could seamlessly degrade my porsche to a camry's performance to get the extra mileage, on occasion I would.
In just the same way, if I was forced to choose between os x & windows, I'd choose os x, but it would be nice to have a copy of windows hanging around in case I wanted to play some games.
Re:iBook user says... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:complete and working windows solution? (Score:3, Insightful)
So you can play games, and then have a mac for everything that isn't a directX-required game.
Windows does ONE thing better than macs, and that is roping in game devellopers.
Re:Don't run your car on railroads.......... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:arrrg (Score:4, Insightful)
And again, if you buy Windows software, you'll get Windows software.
This is also a good reason, though I'd argue that vmware is the better route, if you can afford it. Same as #4. Same as #4.I guess it didn't repeat that often. While I understand that, due to Microsoft's monopoly, there is a lot of Windows-only software, you really do have to vote with your wallet. That is what businesses listen to. Many will likely say that they need Windows-Only-Application-of-Rule; I understand this position. The industry has effectively put its eggs into one basket, and the gravitational pull of the amassed mass makes it potentially very hard to move any of your eggs to another basket. That doesn't mean you should not give it your all to try and change. If you want to try another OS, do so wherever you can, and let your suppliers know of your desire.
With games, my take on it is that it's entertainment and hence fully optional. IMHO, there's no excuse to play a game that doesn't support your platform of choice (unless it's on the discount rack ;).
Re:Tired argument. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:iBook user says... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tired argument. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:iBook user says... (Score:3, Insightful)
so, (Score:3, Insightful)
why? he asks, into the screaming wind...
Then you'd have to buy XP to play games (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Where's the incentive to write OS X apps then? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see your point, but what happens when a given software company is looking at what platforms to write their software for, and sees a Mac user can easily boot / run Windows? Why are they going to pay a bunch of money for Mac developers when they know you'll just dual boot your Mac to run the Windows version?
At that point, why write OS X apps at all? Because it runs better or it has transparent windows? (sarcasm)Yeah, I'm sure software companies are going to fork over lots of money just to maintain an OS X codebase just for that...(/sarcasm) I would think many apps that might have been ported to the Mac or are currently maintained will dry up. This is good for the Mac user in the short term but ultimately hurt Apple in the long run.
MacWindows (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Geez Guys (Score:2, Insightful)