Why run OS X and Windows XP on an Intel Mac
=======Why run OS X and Windows XP on an Intel Mac
>>>>>>> .r7754There have been a lot of speculators on the net as to why you would need to dual boot / run both Windows XP and OS X on an Intel Mac. Aside from my personal preference for OS X and Unix based systems, Here are my lists why I need each one for work:
Reasons I need OS X:
- Presentations - Keynote is miles ahead of powerpoint. I can copy and paste from illustrator, drop in pdfs and the transitions are gorgeous. We have received many WOWs from customers when using Keynote
- PDFs - I generate reports where I have Excel files embedded in Word Documents. In windows, the colors in the embedded excel file dont print. In my Mac in Office 2004… no problem!
- Unix - I sometimes administer the company Debian web server. Running xwindows on Mac OS X, I am able to load up xemacs on the server or other x based programs. I doesnt work as easily using free software for windows.
Reasons I need Windows:
- Microsoft Access - I use it as a front end for SQL Server 2000. I havent found a good alternative where I can easily copy and paste data into excel
- Microsoft Outlook - the mac email client (corrected: Microsoft Entourage) doesnt cut it when talking to Exchange server 2003
- Windows File Sharing - There are a bunch of great websites like macwindows that tell you how to connect your mac to a windows domain. It seems like every update from apple breaks the connection. Not to mention if you are on wireless and it drops! The samba / windows file sharing support in Windows is a lot more resilient. P.s. I am on a Windows Server 2003 domain which seems to have more trouble than earlier versions
Im sure I can find a bunch more if I think about it, but these are the ones that are in the forefront of my mind every time I try to totally switch to one or the other.
January 23rd, 2006 at 6:14 pm
one more reason:
proprietary software that is not ported to the mac - I use several applications that are not and will not be available for the mac.
but I would prefer to have a macbook pro…
g
January 23rd, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Reasons you need Windows (NOT)
1. Use something like Aqua Data Studio to access SQL Server 2000. It’s easy & free.
2. I assume when you mention “mac email client” you’re talking about Apple Mail, and not Microsoft Entourage (which is part of Microsoft Mac OS Office).
3. With the latest version of OS X 10.4, I’ve had no trouble at all connecting to workgroups or M$ domains and their file servers (SMB and all). I don’t know what trouble you’re experiencing.
I’ve been using Mac OS for the past 13 years and ever since OS X has came out, the Mac has almost always had software available for it to be very compatible with pretty much anything you need to get done in Windows (not talking about Virtual PC emulating).
Try searching http://www.versiontracker.com for more software solutions.
January 23rd, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Thinking about buying a MacBook Pro?…
I can’t stop snapping photos of people at Macworld…
The MacBook Pro may be fast, but we still don’t have a real clear picture of what else we could really do with it. Top of every pro user’s mind might be:
1. Would an Intel D…
January 23rd, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Colin, even if it weren’t for those Windows only apps, I’d love to have the freedom to run Windows for the sake of completeness. Nothing beat having the peace of mind knowing you can do anything you want with one laptop. I’m supporting your cause by writing about it in my article about buying a MacBook Pro.
January 23rd, 2006 at 11:17 pm
Yes, but you don’t need to *dual boot* for any of those tasks. All you need is the capability to run Windows in a virtual machine, alongside Mac OS X. Why would you want the annoyance of dual-booting just to run a few Windows applications and use Windows file sharing?
Note I am *not* arguing against dual booting if that is your desire, and for tasks that legitimately will require it, like gaming, graphics intensive applications, applications that require direct access to hardware, and so on. But it seems to me like running Mac OS X and Windows side-by-side, with Windows in a VM (such as a VMware-type solution), sharing filesystems, being able to copy and paste between environments, and so on, is what would serve a person who described their needs as you did much, much better than dual-booting.
Regards,
Dave Schroeder
(removed email address)
http://das.doit.wisc.edu/
January 24th, 2006 at 3:01 am
Only ONE reason!
Battlefield 2!!!
VMWare, Virtual PC NOT solution!!! (directX)
January 24th, 2006 at 7:56 am
Solidworks and Corel 12…the only Win apps I need..everything else is on OSX…
January 24th, 2006 at 8:06 am
Why not use QEMU. It’s *free*, and works really rather well. I know it doesn’t count as a true dual boot solution, but actually, it’s much better. Less hassle, and you can have both environments available simultaneously.
Also, if you can get SSH running on your server, use SCP or FUSE instead of Samba. Much more flexible.
January 24th, 2006 at 8:18 am
Dual booting is messy. It’s like split brain.
Much better is to persist on integration and coexhistence. If you are a truly mac os X person, than fight for it. There are ways. Ultimately Citrix or Windoze terminal server client. That’s what I do for certain windoze only application. Samba mounting has never given me any problem on any Unix (solaris, linux, mac os, open bsd).
If you are a linux debian, than stick to it, and if you are a windoze person.. well sorry for you!
And if there hard limits, than some people will push the boundaries and write new software to overcome those limitations: like Samba for example; or VMWare etc; and that will be REAL progress, not dual booting.
My 2 cents.
benedetto
January 24th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Another reason for xp on a Mac: school software. At school, there’s a lot of school software (for learning vocabulary and stuff) wich doesn’t work on a mac. This makes is impossible for Mac users (like me) to use the software…
January 24th, 2006 at 9:49 am
…and Guild Wars, Dark Age of Camelot, EverQuest2, Lineage2, EVE Online….GAMES!!
January 24th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Nice initiative, a wish would come true.
Lots of excellent Windows applications able to run on your Mac would be great.
Using the mac for it’s strongpoint, graphical and illustrations and Windows for it’s diversity .
January 24th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Dave Schroeder is right! Dual booting would be evil and unnecessary in most situations. a VMware or Virtual PC situation would usually be much preferable!
January 24th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Even, if you can get Windows to boot on Macbook, will there be drivers to support the hardware? Audio, video, network cards??
January 24th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Oh Ricardo… off course it will… Apple’s core duo ofeferings are suported on plain vanila Intel 945 chipset /mobo (wiht an altered pcb design to fit the box) that has all that integrated… so.. if it is equal to a dell computer why shouldn’t there be a windows driver?
January 24th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Autocad and 3D STUDIO MAX
January 24th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
In the end, theres also the geek factor. Just the satisfaction of knowing you can do it adds a little to the “whoa” factor of finaly being able to dual boot XP and OS X. I dual boot between XP and 2000 because a few apps don’t run on 2000 (adobe premiere) for example.. But for all the other work I do, I much prefer 2000 Pro instead.
I’m sure lots of people would be glad to be able to use either without having to use a virtual machine and cut down performance by half just for the sake of making things a little simpler (VM vs Dual boot).
January 24th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
[...] Laten we eerlijk zijn alleen al op het gebied van design wint Apple al jaren het van de traditionele Windows machines. Echter iedereen heedft wel minimaal 1 applicatie/toepassing waarom hij toch op windows blijft hangen. Nu Apple is geswitched naar Intel lijkt dan ook de weg vrij om m.b.v. dual-boot een “best of both worlds” te kunnen creeren. Helaas niets is minder waar, de huidige berichten op het internet zijn dat XP zich niet laat installeren op een AppleTel (Intel gebasseerde Mac). Iemand heeft hier nu bij gedacht, waarom maken we daar niet een prijsvraag van, op de website van ene Colin is daarom nu ook een inzameling begonnen plus meteen de uitdaging aan een ieder om te proberen om Windows XP op een AppleTel te installeren. Het process moet volledig gedocumenteerd worden en moet het mogelijk zijn om d.m.v. dual boot beide OS-en te kunnen draaien. [...]
January 24th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
it wold be very nice even for both apple/microsoft!! they’ll be glad to know that some of us as made it possible!! more machines sold… more windows working on new machine instead of only vista because of its suport for the new trend of bios!
doesn’t that bios have a shortcut key to get boot screen by selecting a disk hdd0 or hdd1? just put a hdd for each OS and boot that way!! its almoust as cool as GRUB, but not customizable thought!!
nice contest!!
January 24th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
For those of you saying to use VMWare, QEMU, or another pc emulator, that wouldn’t be as nice as dual-booting because pc emulation always runs slower. So, with dual-booting, you have full-speed Windows and full-speed Mac.
Also, this way we have a sense of accomplishment of being able to boot Windows on a MacIntel, much like many had when getting OSx86 to run on a non-Apple computer (TPM Removal).
January 24th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
K-12 School District, we have one building for the Elementary and High School. High School uses PC’s and the Elementary uses Mac’s. We would like to purchase a portable lab for use by both sides so each side has a choice of what they want to use.
Personally though, I have ordered a MacBook Pro and running OpenOSX or another option won’t cut it when wanting to play some games that aren’t Mac ported. FEAR is a great game but PC only. Another is network administration. There is no mac admin software for network config via Netware. Most other things like people mention like Office, Macromedia, Adobe I can all use on the Mac side. But to be honest, I am a Windows user, but this MacBook Pro is so delicious, I just need it to run windows. X1600 in it w/ 256 MB RAM. Not much on the PC Laptop side can touch it at this price.
Corey
January 24th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
So, does 10.4.4 run on a WinBox yet?
January 24th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
I really like the idea of having both worlds on one laptop. But also I must say that for my daily usage I’m very happy running a PC somewhere in the basement and I connect to it from my G5 through gigabit ethernet using MS Remote Desktop Connection. No emulation and it’s fast, it runs at the same time as my Mac and I don’t need to see my PC
For people who are looking for a VMWare-like solution, you should try this!
January 24th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Contest per DualBoot su MacIntel…
Un ragazzo texano apre un sito e mette in palio una cifra per il primo che riuscir?† ad avere un sistema dualboot funzionante su un MacIntel con MacOS X e Windows XP.Il ragazzo, dice, ha scommesso con il suo capo che sarebbe riuscito a sostituire in b…
January 24th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
and you think that apple is that great??
http://atomchip.com/_wsn/page5.html
blow your heads!! just because its way too ahead of us… im starting to like asians alot!!!
January 24th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
One of the drawbacks of switching is AutoCAD from Autodesk. AutoCAD has become one huge standard in Architecture. MACs or Linux or … don’t have an alternative to that CAD software yet.
The good thing was that Autodesk made a MAC version, but…
January 24th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
For us musos/composers there are applications and hardware that will never run on mac. For example: Software - Samplitude, Forte, Gigasampler, Wavelab, Soundforge, Sonar, Fuityloops.
Hardware - Soundscape series, pyramidix, Lanbox.
But for me Forte is the clincher. There is NO comparable or even usable live software on the mac. Simple vst/au hosts wont suffice. Neither will Ableton…
January 24th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Who cares about the actual reason why anyone would need to run a dual boot. The simple fact is the challenge to see them coexist on the same system without the use of virtual machines. I give you credit for even coming up with the idea and starting the contest. I will look forward to the results, since I do not own an Apple Box yet, but I have worked on and been configuring them since OS8. I am glad to see the switch and this initiative.
January 25th, 2006 at 12:45 am
[...] Colin Nederkoorn » Why run OS X and Windows XP on an Intel Mac [...]
January 25th, 2006 at 5:24 am
[...] Why anyone would want to dual boot Win XP and OS X - Reasons [...]
January 25th, 2006 at 7:43 am
Microsoft pwns boys
January 25th, 2006 at 7:52 am
How about needing to run ActiveX controls in an Excel spreadsheet. The Mac version of office does not support this. Since we live in a Windows dominated world dual booting to be able to use a spreadsheet with ActiveX would be quite handy.
January 25th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
I’ll add another vote for SolidWorks. I could do everything else I need to do at work via Terminal Server except SolidWorks.
January 25th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Why? Because we’ve had our machines taken away from us at work, and we have only Macs at home. The cost and hassle of dragging two machines around, supporting two machines worth of software, and the annoyance I feel at having to use a Dell laptop to play most games…well that’s all justification. And there’s that last word. Justification. Some of us have been living dual lives, bending to MS during the day, worshipping Apple at night. Can’t we, for once, show that we made the right decision a long long time ago? I want Windoze on my Mac simply so I can tell my IT dept. where to shove it.
January 25th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
The Price. I’m in Greece where Mac penetration is very little. For a computer with the specs of the 20″ Intel iMac you could easily pay 1500-2000 euro. For this price you get a huge clunky case, and variety of different brand and style parts. For 2000 euro you can get the 20″ intel imac which is a great computer specwise, and is top-quality. Not to mention the fact that it sits on the desk with no clunky box. Its simple. In Greece appearance means a big deal - it could mean your customers choosing you over another cafe / training company. So a lab of iMacs running Mac and Windows is very appealing.
January 25th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Wow …! That Atom Chip page is amazing –! And I’m not just talking about the memory, either. Take a look at all the pages on there. Anyone want to give me $18,000 so I can buy one of those super notebooks?
Wonder if Apple knows about these guys …
–gdw
January 25th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
I dual boot OSX and WinXP on my HP DV4000 since august 2005. No reason to buy apple just for OS. If you need and want apple just for os and want XP use first beta of vista which is almost identical to XP even all software and more important DRIVERS work. Thats the only solution i got so far since i dont have intel mac to play with. Good Luck
January 26th, 2006 at 3:04 am
The reason I would want to dualboot (or run windows anyway) is PowerDesigner, I haven’t found a good (stress good) ERD-program for OS X yet. Some other apps that, in my opinion, don’t have a real equivalent (in terms of quality) on OS X: irfanView, Topstyle pro, Textpad, EAC.
January 26th, 2006 at 8:08 am
I bought an Intel iMac, it will be deliverd tomorrow. This is my switch back to Mac since I abandoned my Mac SE about 16 years ago. OSX Tiger did the trick, Intel Macs made me buy a 20″ 2 Gb.
Yes, I too want to run Windows on my Mac. Work and study sometimes force Windows only software upon you. Do I need dual boot or can I do with emulation? Don’t know yet, but I’ll be trying any kind of emulation asap as available in Universal.
Anyone know of a MS Visio back-and-forth compatible app for OSX?
January 26th, 2006 at 8:10 am
Just to add to the previous: I’ll keep my Intel 2.8 GHz for a while. At least it’ll be a good excuse for an extra 20″ widescreen tft.
January 26th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Other reason to dual boot, using SAP GUI…I heard someone says SAP GUI for OSX…yes it only works if you are not workflow and ABAP’s dialog developer.
Runing SAP-GUI on VPC, well, forget it.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Let me say just one reason i have for dual boot
Just one… GAMES HOMMV is coming
and I’m now on CIV 4 (it will be ported but year later) ;-( i dream of a day when BIG game will be published on OS X before on Windows
January 26th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
From reading your comments I’d say for the majority of reasons for needing windows, a dual boot would not be a really feasible solution. Except for gaming at full speed - who wants to shut down the entire working environment just to run some Win app?
I think a virtual machine is much better, less dependent on HW details. And on a x86 Mac there is no reason why it should not reach 80-90% of the native speed - if it’s done right, and using the x86 processor natively, like VMWare already does on a PC.
I’m just waiting for VMWare to announce their Mac OS X x86 version
January 26th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
It seems like many mac users want to run Windows … Hey, why not simply buy another computer ? it’s cheap today … and for gaming, well, this guy wants to do it at WORK no ?
And you can run Xwindows applications on PC, but you will have to buy software. As far as I suppose, you had to buy OS X to use it no ?
So my suggestion is .. dual-computer instead of dual-boot
And gamers : get a Win-PC !
January 26th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
SAP GUI works perfectly fine on OS X, I use it every day and connect to at least 5 different SAP servers around the world. It is the exact same for Mac as it is on a PC, except you need to manually type in your configuration settings the first time, instead of having a GUI to set up your connection.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:23 am
As an old-timer Amiga user, I prefer a Virtual Machine solution than a dual booting one. When Mac was still based on 68k CPUs, Amiga had two superb Mac emulation apps, ShapeShifter and Fusion, and they were able to actually run MacOS faster than the real thing, when compared to a Mac with the same processor. And VMWare already does this on a PC, running another x86 OSes at nearly full speed.
But, anyway, why not have both solutions…?
January 27th, 2006 at 9:04 am
I personally would love to use a Mac, but would miss the many available Windows apps like Borland Delphi, MS Office compatibility (incl. Outlook and Access), and unfortunately can spend money only once (anybody found a solution to THAT problem yet? haha) … otherwise …
January 27th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Well for Windows XP to run on EFI someone will have to implement a BIOS for the EFI Bootloader, I’m not sure this will be easy/possible till march, but well see.
I think only emulations should be excluded. Any Virtualization is OK as long as the OS has direct access to the hardware. That would be the same what Apple is doing (or the patent is implying).
It will even allow playing games and take advantage of graphic card features and speed.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:59 am
I currently have an iMac with dual monitors. If I need to do development work for Windows, then I remote desktop into a Windows machine and put it on one of the monitors, mostly for testing that everything works under Inernet Explorer. However, when I travel to the clients office, I take a Dell laptop. Most of the development I do on the Mac I can also do on the Dell(ie. J2EE using eclipse, etc) but I would prefer not to. If I could dual boot into XP, then I could use OS X at 80% of my client’s offices, but still be able to load an XP environment when necessary for Visual Studio, Installshield, testing, etc.)
January 27th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Great idea to put up some stake money as an incentive! Aside from the politics of Mac versus Windows and personal preference, a lot of users have to co-exist in both OS worlds. In my case it’s because that’s the way my customers work. My print business uses both platforms but in some space constrained areas it would be great to have both OS’s running in one box. I currently do this at home on a G5 Mac with OS 10.4.4 and MS Virtual PC running Win XP. I really like the seamless way that files can be dragged from one OS desktop to the other. The big problem at present is speed. If VPC or similar app can facilitate the EFI bootup and allow the Windows OS to run 80-90% natively on the Macintels, I’ll be joining the queue to buy. VPC in my view is a good product conceptually but to slow in execution. Dual booting would be nice but my vote is for both OS’s to run concurrently on the new Macs.
January 28th, 2006 at 8:12 am
Honestly, I ave no darn idea why both Gates and Jobs don’t open up their OSes for each other. It seems to me like this is win-win. A Windoze user buys a crappy M$ box and decides that they really want to use OS X. As of now the user would be SOL, but if they only had to spend about $125 for the OS X, then I bet a lot more people would be OS switching like crazy …. which would mean increased sales.
What about an OS X user switching to M$??? That would never happen you say??? Well, hell, even Mac users get sick (and silly); they would buy M$, use it for a few weeks, then come crying back to OS X.
January 28th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Games Games Games Games Games
January 28th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
O, sorry and Ghost Cast Server
January 29th, 2006 at 3:13 am
ms visual studio + matlab (doesn’t work on intel cpus yet)
January 29th, 2006 at 6:15 am
Well, Windows XP is the actual main OS due to statistics and not by its technologic value. Microsoft is in panic trying to make Vista get near the actual OSX. I think, sincerely, that the dual boot is not useful and you will use more OSX than Windows. When a software does not run on OSX it’s a poor developed project and will be dead in less than 10 years (just like Windows). The new tech-reality Apple+Adobe+Intel+Disney is going to change the actual computing reality. If you want games, get a PlayStation and be productive and a challenge leader on your Mac. Windows is for masses. OSX is for the intellectual tech and art elite.
January 29th, 2006 at 6:17 am
You can install X11 and its apps and make the “so advanced windows server tools” look lika a joke. Real pro UNIX tools. Open your minds. Windows is dying.
January 29th, 2006 at 6:26 am
I used Windows and our team know its limits. It’s a poor product being promoted by a blind industry looking for market targets and not real solutions for people and companies. Get away of Windows Server and change it to UNIX (there is a lot of free options out there). Besides of much more powerful, it’s much more secure. The Windows jokes: ActiveX, DirectX, Spyware, Viruses, etc. Awake people. Change your intellectual pleasure position to a technologic evolution and get the best results. It’s so nice when you win a stupid tendency and enter a new level. Slow people will have to pay for you then. It’s evolution and free commerce.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Main reason I want MacBook Pro is because it is a powerful machine. I love the machine and all the appz that comes with it. BUT there are SOME appz which i can’t run under mac os x for my work, such as, Websphere MQ. Its just matter of time that almost all appz will be available for both OS.
February 4th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Why don’t you just get a Sony Vaio? It’s Attractive. It runs Windows Natively. It’s got great media functionality…
and like everything else… it’s cheaper!
Wow people, Apple has delivered us a price-upped, incompatible, forcibly proprietary machine and we’re rejoicing? It’s almost an insult to the x86 specification. So you can run an implementation of BSD, how exciting! Why not dual-boot Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux on a brand new Vaio or Acer or Compaq? They’re made by Quanta, as well. Big deal.
Look at Windows Vista- attractive, functional, and cheap, too! — and they didn’t even have to steal Mach, BSD, and OpenStep to create their OS!
You know, if you don’t like powerpoint you can always try Impress. That certainly runs on Windows. I use StarOffice 8 on whatever machine I’m running. I tend to use Windows 2000, Mac OS X 10.2 (i have an old powerbook), and occasionally Ubuntu Linux.
I’m tired of everyone flipping it out because Apple recently caught up with Linux in technology - they’ve got a long way to go before they’re wetting MS’s heels.
That even solves the gaming problem!
PS - I don’t understand why you can’t produce PDF’s and run emacs in windows… why not admin your server through putty? OS’s are surprisingly transparent, be a wise consumer.
February 5th, 2006 at 5:49 am
Re: Reasons I need Windows - 3 (Windows File Sharing)
Hi Colin!
I’ve also had problems with my Mac on a Windows domain, because of Mac OS X poorly supporting Windows proxies. However, the issue was completely solved by this little program Authoxy (free):
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/10899
Don’t know if this will help you, but I hope so.
February 5th, 2006 at 6:00 am
Re: Anyone know of a MS Visio back-and-forth compatible app for OSX?
Try OmniGraffle!
February 7th, 2006 at 8:33 am
malevolentjelly Says:
“Look at Windows Vista- attractive, functional, and cheap, too! ‚Äî and they didn‚Äôt even have to steal Mach, BSD, and OpenStep to create their OS!”
You are right, they didn’t steal Mach, BSD, or OpenStep. They just sat down with an OSX box and decided what they liked about it and stole it directly. And don’t forget that you can also run extra software on a Windoze machine: Anrivirus software, spyware software, the list goes on. I’ll keep my Macs and avoid Microsoft like the plague.
February 7th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
I’ve successfully run many Windows Systems without spyware or adware support. The primary security issue has always been Internet Explorer and Outlook Express. I would say most of the major security issues have been solved since Windows 2000, and that MS has gelled their OS since XP SP2. The weakest times for windows was pre-2000… when you could run mac and enjoy all the joy of 1980’s computing:
-dismal memory “management”
-awful software support (no unix core yet!)
-non pre-emptive computing
Acting like Windows is still as crappy as Windows 98 is like acting like Mac OS X is an upgrade of OS 9.
Most of the stability OS X offers is merely an effect of the incredible lack of hardware support. If Windows only supported a handful of machines, in total, it would probably run circles around OS X in terms of stability.
–That’s not to mention the incredibly irresponsible behavior of Apple in the way of leaving the last “major” version change incompatible with future software on an almost yearly basis. I’d say you save a lot of money just running a generation of Windows and enjoying about 5 years of direct upgrade support, then a whole computing generation of basic software support.
This idea that Microsoft is robbing OS X is hardly relevant, the OS X gui is very intuitive, but it’s really standing on the shoulders of NeXT — i mean, that’s the OpenStep interface, to a hair, with guifications. And they actually had NeXT’s code to work with, whereas Microsoft is only adapting concepts. I think the “stealing directly” statement is a little mislead.
The only company out there with worse business practices than Microsoft is Apple. If you are trying to make a statement, run Linux.
February 9th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
run VS.net/code C# on a mac !
February 14th, 2006 at 9:04 am
That’s right superman!
Currently I’m developing .NET apps and I kind of really need Visual Studio 2005. At the same time I want to have this MacBook and use OS X. don’t ask why, I just want it
February 14th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Here is one, I need a windows machine to boot inside the four walls of most of my clients offices. Often I have to join their messy domains and let them make a hash of the machine itself. I have a choice - dual boot and carry a spare harddrive and live in WinDoz or carry two bleeping machines like I do now.
Which one sounds easier to carry?
Zig.
February 15th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Counter-Strike is the reason. There’s no port of Havok for MacOS, therefore, there is no Half-Life for MacOS….:/
Worse than that, there’s no effort to bring Havok for MacOS…so titles depending on it, will never reach MacOS platform…sadly
February 16th, 2006 at 6:47 am
Lets add Visio and MS Publisher….
February 16th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Choice is freedom. Why would anyone object to giving users another option? If you don’t want to run Windows on a MacBook, then don’t. If you do, great.. wish us both luck!
I’ve been looking for a laptop that’s better looking than my Vaio and also more powerful. MacBook fits the bill. Windows XP/2k3 and OS X are all wonderful OSes and I really look forward to the day that I can use my preferred OS on slick Mac hardware.
Here’s to choice!
February 16th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
I think it would be a great marketing idea. Apple could just sell their machine with either MacOSX or Windows or Both. Someone who doesn’t want to switch to OSX but likes Mac hardware could just get a XP version of the Mac hardware.
April 21st, 2006 at 9:46 am
For being a new convert to mac…..i have apps that are platform specific that would be very expensive to buy again in os x version…..like Photoshop etc….I must say after having used Bootcamp on my MBP Photoshop runs better than it did on my Win laptop….thought to be fair my MBP is quite a bit better in terms of hardware……that said I am satisfied enough with performance not to want to buy another copy of Photoshop….plus with the win partition in FAT 32 i can easily grab my files into OSX….other than a few apps I am always in OS X which I really like. So to end for those of us who have been win users for years and have apps that we don’t want to buy again being able to have both os’s on one platform is very beneficial and functional. Thanks Apple!
November 13th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Video chatting with Windows Live MSN