Parallels to turn it around, help Mac OS onto generic PC boxen
By Paul Miller 
posted January 22nd 2007 5:25PM
posted January 22nd 2007 5:25PM
With the popularity of software like Apple's Boot Camp and SWsoft's Parallels, it's no secret that people want to run Windows and Mac OS on the same box, but who says that it has to be an Apple box? Well, Apple does, and the company has staunchly defended itself from the porting of OS X into the mad world of PC generics (not with total success, of course). But with mounting pressure from users and increasing software support from VMware and SWsoft, Steve Jobs might have to let go of his tight grasp on his shiny blue OS -- or at least turn the other way as OS X makes its way onto those vile, inferior, and cheaper x86 machines without his blessing. On that front, there's good news on the horizon: it turns out an upcoming version of Parallels just so happens to "make it easier to run Mac OS on a non-Apple computer," by some unknown but welcome means. VMware's own upcoming virtualization software for the Mac has been hamstrung by the trouble VMware has gone through trying to get Apple's blessing, and SWsoft's Parallels has been "crippled" in particular ways to make it more difficult to get Mac OS onto a non-Apple machine, but it seems like it's only going to get harder for Apple to have it both ways, and Intel's inclusion of virtualization in its own chips just compounds the "problem." Michael Dell has also reconfirmed his desire to pre-load Mac OS onto his own boring boxes "if customers wanted it and Apple would license it on reasonable terms," but that tantalizing offer doesn't seem to have swayed Apple yet.[Via Techmeme]
I'm sorry but this isnt new, i had os x running on a windows pc, fast but just no video card support, if you dont believe me, check out this website, http://www.osx86project.org/
Just to let you guys know:)
I really don't think good ol' Michael Dell would get an Apple clone deal if there ever was one to give. Remember, this is the same Michael Dell who said:
"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." Michael Dell, 1997, when asked what to do to fix the Mac market.
The thing I love about Windows, that you literally are incapable of doing with a computer running Mac OSX:
I can browse the Internet, edit my videos, work on my web site projects (and I mean real, dynamic web sites, with SQL databases and the like), listen to (almost) any music I want for only $10/month, work on my 3D accelerated live presention software, play Day of Defeat: Source, check my e-mail, organize my photo collection, watch Sunday nights' Battlestar Galactica that I missed, send photos to Wal-Mart, play Oblivion, use Remote Desktop to QUICKLY remotely access my machine at work, upload 600+ songs to my cell phone, jump back to editing my lastest promo video, type up my next weekly lesson, IM my friends for awhile, fiddle with my new 3D shader ideas, link up with my other machine and my brothers' laptops to play some LAN games (Total Annihilation and Unreal Tournament still top the list as favorites, even after all these years), check my e-mail again, and leave my machine on overnight so it's ready to do it all again tomorrow.
All without once having to restart and switch OSes, go to a different computer, or run a virtual machine.
Try that on a Mac.
>I can browse the Internet,
Check
> edit my videos,
Check
>work on my web site projects (and I mean real, dynamic web sites, with SQL databases and the like),
Check
> listen to (almost) any music I want for only $10/month,
Check, without the monthly fee just to keep listening to my music
>work on my 3D accelerated live presention software,
Can't answer as you don't specify which app
> play Day of Defeat: Source,
You got me there
> check my e-mail,
Check
>organize my photo collection,
Check
> watch Sunday nights' Battlestar Galactica that I missed,
Check
>send photos to Wal-Mart,
Check
> play Oblivion,
Can't do that
>use Remote Desktop to QUICKLY remotely access my machine at work,
Check
>upload 600+ songs to my cell phone,
Check
> jump back to editing my lastest promo video,
Check
>type up my next weekly lesson,
Check
>IM my friends for awhile,
Check
> fiddle with my new 3D shader ideas,
What do you mean?
>link up with my other machine and my brothers' laptops
Check...
>to play some LAN games (Total Annihilation and Unreal Tournament still top the list as favorites, even after all these years),
D'oh! Got me there
>check my e-mail again,
Check
>and leave my machine on overnight so it's ready to do it all again tomorrow.
Check. Sometimes I leave mine on for two nights.
What's apparent is that the only key things a Mac user cannot do that you can relates to gaming. Macs have never been a gaming machine, and I doubt they ever will be.
The PC suits you down to the ground as you like to do all the things above and play games in addition. Therefore, the PC makes sense
However, for 'non-gamers', the ability to do everything else listed above without the need to buy (or steal) any additional software is an attractive option.
And thanks to its smaller market share, (and who knows, maybe due to its UNIX underpinnings, I don't know), it suffers less web attacks on a daily basis. Not having to update firewall/antiviral/malware software on a regular basis makes life that little bit easier for some.
Not turning this into a PC/Mac war (such discussions are pointless), but just drawing attention to the fact that both platforms can appeal to different markets.
Some people *like* running Windows (shock horror), and some people *like* running OS X. Other people *need* to run Windows, and others *need* to run OS X.
From my own experience (I own both a PC and a Mac), I find the Mac a better out-of-the-box experience. I like the fact that everything I'm likely to use is there.
That's just my experience, some will agree, some won't. Be careful not to assume other computers can't do what yours can, without checking first.
Depends what you mean by 3D accelerated presentations. With keynote I can do some high quality 3D presentations in HD. Aside from those specific games it seems like you can do everything on a Mac. You can also bring a random Mac in bluetooth range and connect directly with with it. Stream music, transfer files, etc. I can also stream music, video, photos through my 360 (yes, on a Mac), I can setup multiple user accounts and switch between them without logging out of any account or even closing programs. I can also instal new software without restarting, plug in peripherals, midi controlers, etc without loading drivers, encrypt sections of my hard-drive without third party software, record, edit, mix music without third party software, then export it directly to iTunes, or to a mp3. Write my own audio plug-ins with the built-in software development kit.
Hmm, what else? Edit movies in HD without third party software. Add soundtracks, visual effects. Share photos albums on the net, backup and share files on the net using .mac. Tell my computer to open and run applications from across the room using the built-in voice recognition software. Run video conferences. Automate repetative tasks in mac apps as well as third party (MS Office, CS2, etc).
Don't get me started on the Pro applications. The only thing mentioned above that you can't do with the system right out of the box is stream to a 360. You'll need to download Connect360 to do that. Sort of funny that you bring up not restarting your computer. Unless you have an OS upgrade you basically don't restart a mac even when installing software.
First I thought this was cool but quickly realised it's mostly a novelty..
Parallels was important because it allowed Mac-users to gain access to important programs only available for Windows without rebooting their Mac.
Boot Camp was important because it allowed Mac-owners to use programs/games only available for Windows which required Direct3D etc.
So - Mac-users saw quite a few advantages in being able to run Windows and Windows-only programs. But the other way around? I can't mention one single program available for OS X for which there isn't a equivalent or better version Windows-version among the programs I use.
Sure, maybe people in the media can find it useful when migrating from Mac OS to Windows? But anyone besides these and Geeks(tm)?
The release of Vista and a new office suite create an enormous opportunity for Apple to use capability like that from Parallels to wrest significant marketshare from Microsoft - but only if Apple encourages the use of Mac OS on non Apple hardware.
If past experince is a guy, Steve Jobs'll pass on this opportunity. Too bad for both Apple stockholders and PC users.
bogged more on that here: http://blog.tomevslin.com/2007/01/apples_golden_o.html
Should Apple license OS X to other major computer makers the market share of OS X would probably rise a few percent units, but not more. Should it already today be a huge demand for OS X people would buy Apple hardware if necessary to run OS X, even if they could only afford a Mac Mini. Apple hardware is not primarily expensive in itself (Mac Mini is inexpensive as a mini-computer, iMac is inexpensive as a AIO (actually it's one of the least expensive AIO i have found) and MacPro is inexpensive as a workstation. But these are hardware solutions people ain't really interested in buying. Dell offer no Mini-solution or AIO because their customers have no interest in such formfactors. And while they offer workstations in the $2000-$10000-range, their bread-and-butter sales consist of fairly normal miditowers. And the same can be said about HP, Gateway and more or less any other computer manufacturer out there. And so the share of Apple hardware would fall like a stone in thin air. Let's not kid ourself, with the current lineup Apple would in only a few months lose probably ~90 percent of their sales to Dell since a major exodus from expensive and limited hardware to common towers would take place.
And this is why Apple as it stands now never will release OS X to other companys. They stand to gain a few percentage points in OS marketshare - but would at the same time lose almost all of their hardware sales.
The day that i will run OSX on my dell (legally) will be the day that my bro's zune will work again... it will never ever ever happen apple wants people to buy their shiny boxes when they want the best OS for all those who got exiceted over boot camp and the intel switch get over it jobs will never ever ever put his precious tiger / lepord on those heathens *shudder* which is why apple will never never never out compete microsoft in the market share ... they dont like sharing without paying a hefty to join the mac cult
Sell software while you can. The human race is transcending unfree data as we speak.
*post censored for open source/piracy encouraging content*
I would love to run OS X on an Intel Quad-core 1300 MHz FSB ECS motherboard...with 4 gigs of Mushkin extreme...and 1 gig of PC express crossfire video...
It would farkin' rock
Steve Jobs is the biggest idiot in world history for not porting a superior OS to Intel systems 20 years ago. Gates would now be working for him if he had...
I like the idea. I wouldn't be caught dead using an Apple, but wouldn't mind playing around with the OS to see if any of the opinions of those AppleFans are justified.
My perception of things is that the distinctions are becoming more and more blurred. Two things that have happened have changed the whole picture. Apple is now using Intel chips. Apple is now basing their system on an Open Source OS. The result is that today's Apple has no resemblance whastever to previous systems.
Amazingly, this means that current Apple applications are totally incompatible with previous versions. What little compatibility there is is solely due to emulation.
On the other hand, in the Intel/Windows world, you can boot up your Pentium Core2 Duo on DOS 2.1 and run programs written for the original IBM PC. Not that you'd likely want to, but this is backwards compatibility as it should be.
With OSX, Apple has effectively thrown the baby out with the bath water and, in my view, most of their credibility went with it.