Windows Drivers for Mac Rolling Out

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."

Great News!

[NutMan]

My daughter will be entering Univ. of Cincinnati's DAAP (Design, Art, Architecture & Planning) school next fall. The college uses almost all Macs EXCEPT for the Industrial Design program, which requires a PC running Windows. She much prefers a Mac, and was probably going to buy a Mac for her own use and a PC for any school requirements. However now she could just get an Intel MacBook and a copy of XP.

Ball in Microsoft's court...

[SRCShelton]

If Microsoft has any sense, they'll make damn sure that Vista supports all of the hardware that Apple uses. Any additional retail Windows sales they might get from this have got to be good (because how many people buy Windows off the shelf nowadays?) - and isn't 5% of the market a lot to ignore?

They'll never do a "Windows for Apple" - it'd be too easy for Apple to pull the rug from under them - but I wouldn't be surprised if Vista quietly gains support for the non-working components and 32bit EFI, and that this quickly becomes the worst kept secret in computing...

Still waiting for "Classic mode" Windows

[phillymjs]

Great! Now we just need the final piece of the puzzle: something that will let me run that same installation of Windows as an OS X application, the same way OS X runs OS 9 on PPC Macs.

Because I need to run Windows apps occasionally during the day, but having to boot back and forth to do it would seriously suck.

I'm sure someone's working on it, and that someone is going to take a lot of sales from any future version of VirtualPC that will run on the MacIntels. (And that'll be what you deserve for dragging your feet, Microsoft.)

~Philly

I am dual booting and it is amazing!

[soapvox]

For someone like me who uses 75% mac and have to do a few PC things for work this is great. I travel a lot and I am about to go on my first roadshow in a week where I wont have to lug around 2 computers as I have been for the past 3 years. I have tried Virtual PC, Qemu and even remote desktop and nothing was ever a complete solution, this is. So all those asking why, thats why!

Re:Cool

[TgmBxA!X8(TNDWr_,+xv]

If you really can't find a Mac equivalent or a more Mac-like way of doing what you're accustomed to on Windows, Q is a Cocoa port [kberg.ch] of QEMU, and apparently it works fairly well [beatnikpad.com]. YMMV.

Re:Counterproductive?

[xtracto]

The funny thing is, even sone Microsoft products are more complete on OSX than in Windows [google.co.uk]

Re:Hurray!

[CastrTroy]

Yes, but i can't afford to have 2 computers (Or I don't want to take up the space, or some other excuse), and since I need windows sometimes, I have to have a windows machine. Now, If I can buy 1 computer that runs both Mac and windows, I'd be more likely to do so. I would buy a Mac just because I like it, not because of any specific piece of software.

Re:VMWare

[wandazulu]

I asked this very question and the answer was a cagey "stay tuned for an announcement...". I suppose they could come back and say "no way, no how", but I see no reason why they wouldn't, short of some insurmountable technical hurdle, which given the miracles VMWare performs on a daily basis for me, doesn't seem likely.

I think it'd be win-win for them...VirtualPC is now controlled by Microsoft and maybe they'll update it, maybe they won't, but VMWare has nothing to lose, and they have the better product as well. This could very well be one of the most killer apps for the Mac platform. Sad, but I'd rather take my Mac to work and run Windows under VMWare than use a POS Dell.

I'd say that getting VMWare would be the most popular app available on an Intel Mac after (maybe before) Office. Plus the fact that VMWare's guest OS can fill the screen when running locally, it's like dual booting but without the lack of stability. :)

Microsoft should be funding this!

[smoor]

Considering the fact that Windows defenders always point to the wide array of hardware that Windows has to run on vs. the controlled architecture of an Apple, this is a chance for Windows to prove how stable it can be.

This is not a joke. Now there is a solid user base comprised of known machines. The drivers, etc. can be optimized to that.

I personally like Windows XP, never got into Macs, but this could be an excellent solution (once its hardened a bit) for a stable machine. Just a thought.

The people dual booting OS X and Windows could end up with more stable windows installations than a Dell, and certainly more stable than a homebrew machine.

Re:Tired argument.

[bsane]

Of course this could also have the effect of completely killing the Mac game market*. Even games that are currently cross-platform might have been released Windows only if there was a simple way to dual boot to XP.

*I know the market isn't that big, but some things like WoW and Quake and such are nice to have.

Re:Er.... Straw Man

[Lave]

I said, work which doesn't have to be "office work." It's not my fault if you can not think of an example for this situation.

I am a Astrophysics Researcher, and the guys in our optic labs often have to use 3rd party instrumentation software that needs XP. This bugs them. We assume people aren't idiots. But our group can't afford to buy us laptops, only desktops. Really shitty desktops. WE have no problem with OUR laptops being connected to OUR network. We aren't morons.

This allows our people to buy themselves a mac laptop which they can use in unix mode, and then drop into XP when needed.

This is a easy, cheap and convenient solution to their needs.

This question might make heads explode, but

[Catbeller]

I know this may be considered silly, but: I don't care to run XP. I run Windows 2000, because I own legal copies, because the OS is rock solid, because it doesn't seem to vacuum up the viruses and spyware that XP does, it doesn't spy on my system and phone home to Redmond (oh, XP will, just give it time), and finally, 2000 doesn't shut itself off I change too many hardware components, and require me to beg Redmond to turn it back on. It just works. And I really don't care about games.

Is this massive knowledge base being built for installing XP applicable or adaptable to installing 2000 on the Mac? Drivers, yup. That would be a problem. But generally?

Do the Intel Macs have virtualization hardware?

[Animats]

Do the Intel Macs have the virtualization hardware needed to run Xen properly?

Re:Counterproductive?

[mccalli]

Good points and I'd like to address them one by one.

I understand you need too keep your financial records accessible. However, myself, I would never let my data be tied up into a proprietary format.

13 years ago, that was the choice. There was no non-proprietary equivalent.

What happens if Quicken goes belly-up, or gets bought out, or any of a thousand other things that could happen to cause support for Quicken and/or its' current data formats to cease?

It's already happened - I use Quicken UK, and they've withdrawn from the UK market. But it doesn't matter to me - I use the 2002 Deluxe And Business Edition under an emulator Windows 2000, and the functionality is just the same. So long as a PC emulator exists, the software lives on.

I know that F/OSS tax/bookeeping software isn't as polished as its' Windows non-free brethren, but just the fact that I will always be able to access that data with whatever free and open-standard programs I wish to run makes up for the whistles and bells in my case.

Well...sort of. Free doesn't imply perpetual. I do agree with this point, but I'm more cautious in my backing for it. If a project dies, then whether the format was known or not doesn't really matter unless I'm prepared to pay a developer to get it imported into some new project, or do the work myself.

I understand the devil is in the details, and there may be certain details and facts of your situation that make switching to a more open solution extremely difficult or impossible at this time.

This is a key point - I've actually tried out many other packages to see if I could migrate away. None of them successfully imported my previous data files - they all got the balances wrong, the inter-account transfers wrong...nothing worked. Not even Quicken itself - the Mac version. So I'm a bit stuck at the moment, waiting for improvements and patiently filing bug reports.

I'd keep an eye on the major F/OSS tax/bookeeping software projects, and maybe even drop a forum post or an e-mail to the developers, stating what features/abilities/formats would be needed to be added or fixed to make using their software (and switching *away* from your current solution) more of a do-able, realistic task.

Absolutely, and that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm continuing to use Quicken 2002 under emulation, because it does the job and the job is rather important. But I'm not blindly following it - I do look around every so often to see if there's a place I can jump to.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Counterproductive?

[BlueStrat]

Well...sort of. Free doesn't imply perpetual. I do agree with this point, but I'm more cautious in my backing for it. If a project dies, then whether the format was known or not doesn't really matter unless I'm prepared to pay a developer to get it imported into some new project, or do the work myself.

Actually, the pure F/OSS projects (as opposed to open projects that may use proprietary formats or libraries, or that have non-Free licensing terms) use open data format standards, which should make the data translatable or even straight-importable to another F/OSS application.

Also, you *do* have the source code, so you *can* modify it, or pay someone else to, if you desire. You don't have that option with closed-source, normally.

This is a key point - I've actually tried out many other packages to see if I could migrate away. None of them successfully imported my previous data files - they all got the balances wrong, the inter-account transfers wrong...nothing worked. Not even Quicken itself - the Mac version. So I'm a bit stuck at the moment, waiting for improvements and patiently filing bug reports.

Agreed, the state of migrational paths and tools is not all it could be, not helped at all by copyright, patent, DMCA, DRM, and other current IP control, regulation, and legislation.

Costs, labor, and time required to migrate make it a daunting task. On the plus side, the costs are generally one-time, with a minimally-costly and troublesome migration path from F/OSS app or platform to F/OSS app. or platform for future migrations.

I'd keep an eye on the major F/OSS tax/bookeeping software projects, and maybe even drop a forum post or an e-mail to the developers, stating what features/abilities/formats would be needed to be added or fixed to make using their software (and switching *away* from your current solution) more of a do-able, realistic task.

Absolutely, and that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm continuing to use Quicken 2002 under emulation, because it does the job and the job is rather important. But I'm not blindly following it - I do look around every so often to see if there's a place I can jump to.

Cheers,
Ian

Excellent! I'm a believer in F/OSS, but I'm not fanatical. There is a real world where people have priorities, responsibilities, and immediate needs that *have* to be dealt with.

With the fairly-rapid pace of development in the F/OSS world, I'm confident that (barring additional IP restrictions/legislation or anti-interoperative measures by the proprietary vendors) migrational paths will continue to improve.

Thanks for your insightful, balanced, and well-written response!

Cheers right back, and good luck!

Strat