Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Odds and ends
Contest: Dual-booting WinXP and Mac OS X on Intel Mac
Here's a guy that so badly wants to run Windows XP natively on his new Intel-based Mac that he's started a contest to pay the first person who can offer a working way to dual-boot
both Mac OS X and WinXP on an Intel Mac.I'm all for the idea of having a computer than can run any OS on the market, but I don't think dual-booting an Intel Mac is the answer. I feel a better solution is for Apple to provide a Rosetta-like translation layer (think WINE for Mac OS X) in which Windows apps can run natively. Just being able to boot your Intel Mac into WinXP does nothing for the monumental security, virus, and spyware problems that plague the Windows world, almost all of which target the OS (or applications tightly integrated into the OS).
If Apple really wants to offer a competitive alternative to Microsoft Windows, just think how attractive a computer would be that could run natively every single piece of software on the shelf (without having to reboot into a different OS which is very consumer unfriendly), and also without Windows' security problems.
Just as Microsoft is gearing up for a Windows Vista launch this summer (or Fall as the date keeps moving), Apple could really make a splash by announcing at WWDC their next version of Mac OS X with this kind of translation layer built in.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Matt said 8:49PM on 1-22-2006
because of copyright laws, that translation layer would have to come from Microsoft. that either means another VirtualPC (ehh... well at least it wouldn't be as slow as the old VPC) or something like Apple did with Classic (i.e. what you were just talking about with running windows apps natively, but without the whole desktop/startbar thing - just click and run), but the second choice could possibly bring all those vulnerabilities to Mac. I'm not a software engineer (yet), but if it translates the 'good' code, chances are it will translate the 'bad' code too...
my two cents, but it could be flawed...
Reply
Mark Fleser said 9:02PM on 1-22-2006
they do have WINE for OS X it's called Darwine http://darwine.opendarwin.org//they do have WINE for OS X it's called Darwine http://darwine.opendarwin.org//
Reply
JG said 9:08PM on 1-22-2006
Lets be realistic; if microsoft can't get windows software to run right on windows, what makes you think that apple can get it to run right on os x?
Reply
neil said 9:15PM on 1-22-2006
When I first heard about Rosetta second hand from a macrumors thread live at the keynote, I thought it was just that, an app that allows you to run Windows apps in Mac OS. Ah well, shame it isn't.
As far as I know, Darwine is for the PPC processor, not for Intel, and it doesn't emulate the Intel processor.
However, the WINE people will most likely get a version of their App running on Intel I would think quite easily.
Reply
rboyce said 9:26PM on 1-22-2006
No matter where it's running, Windows will have the same security issues. If you're dual-booting a Mac with XP, your XP install will get just as many viruses. If you're running XP in a virtualization layer, as long as it saves its state, it too will be equally affected.
Reply
Piotr Malecki said 9:28PM on 1-22-2006
To all those naysayer's who don't understand why you'd want Windows on a Mac:
- Most games are only available for Windows
- A significant number of programs are Windows only (especially in-house programs which won't be ported ever)
Now as to those debating whether Windows should be run natively (dual-boot), in a virtual enviroment (Virtual PC) or through a compatibility layer (Wine):
- MS doesn't know whether it'll release VPC for Intel Macs (if it does it'll take at least a couple of months till they release it)
- Wine will take less time to complete than Darwine, but still might take months
- Dual-boot is the fastest way to run Windows especially for games, video and audio programs (2 OSs aren't running at the same time)
- Other than getting Windows to boot (in a dual-boot situation) there shouldn't be any other problems, because the new iMac is essentialy an IBM PC Clone (though it has has EFI instead of a BIOS)
Reply
James said 9:28PM on 1-22-2006
The WINE people are working on something intel-native too.
Here's the problem I have with it being easy to run Windows apps under OS X: It removes the incentive to code for OS X. If I can target the largest market (ie Windows) with my code, and as a bonus I can get the OS X market thrown in, why would I bother wasting money to make an OS X port? Several companies - most notably Adobe - have been making noise about the amount of hassle involved in porting from Codewarrior to XCode to make their binaries Universal. I bet they'd love to have a single integrated codebase instead, which would be the one that already runs on x86.
You also need to factor in the complexity of this type of project. Rosetta is one thing, because Apple owns and completely understands all the APIs involved. Ask any WINE developer and you'll begin to understand the million and one machiavellian devices that keep Windows APIs proprietary.
Then you have to consider the difficulty for Apple of supporting software built for a completely different OS with a completely different UI paradigm. How do you implement drag and drop? How do you make a Windows app work with the OS X Trash? How do you explain to your users that some apps are going to be OS X-y, and some are going to be different, and probably flaky, and they won't do a lot of stuff that you usually expect apps to do? If they won't support Windows on their hardware, why should they support Windows software on their OS? But by putting out a Windows Compatibility Environment they'd be implictly admitting they did, and opening themselves up to an enormous volume of potential support headaches.
I think there are two things we'll get:
1. WINE for OS X on Intel. And like WINE for Linux, it will be more involved than just a drag and drop install. It won't offer perfect support for everything, and it won't be for the faint hearted.
2. MS VirtualPC for OS X on Intel. Hopefully with some more modern hardware specs and better integration, like native access to the host mac's drives, some degree of drag and drop between environments, a shared clipboard and so on. MS might um and ah about this, but I think it will happen because ultimately it only helps MS for the reasons I outlined at the top of this post.
Reply
Ben said 9:33PM on 1-22-2006
the ability to run Windows applications out-of-the-box will kill application development for OS X
Reply
Jack Beckman said 10:01PM on 1-22-2006
Posts 7 and 8 hit the nail on the head. OS/2 ran Windows apps (win 3.1) natively, and companies like WordPerfect used that as their excuse to kill off development of their OS/2 versions.
Reply
LD said 10:21PM on 1-22-2006
Between WINE, CodeWeavers Crossover Office, and Trnasgaming there is little need to have a dual boot. Most of the essentials (Office, most apps, even games that rely on DirectX) can work nicely in a *nix environment. Once those get ported and optimized for OS X86 there is almost no need to dual boot an Apple box.
I personally don't care about dual boot. I am much more interested in running apps directly in OS X.
Reply
Don Wilson said 10:31PM on 1-22-2006
The people who want to run Windows on a Mac want to run WINDOWS, not Windows Applications.
Reply
nejayco said 10:35PM on 1-22-2006
If I wanted a machine that ran Windows I would have bought one. Oh wait I did. It is right here on my home network and I use it whenever I want and it doesn't detract from my better machines. I dual boot all the time. With six computers in the house multiple OS on a network is nothing new here. So my main concern is Apple watering down the standards to reach the Windows audience.
It is like the Sams Culb and Walmart analogy. Pretty much the same type of items in the stores but different packaging. Sams Club charges a higher entry level price. What do I get for that higher price? A lot fewer proles, troles, and malcontents in my area.
For the record: Games are for the X Box, PS2 etc.
I'll stick to my adult computer running a Mac OS.
Reply
ct77 said 10:38PM on 1-22-2006
Wow, brilliant idea. Let's have OS X run Windows apps natively? Then watch every major software manufacturer drop support for "true" OS X programs, and write only Windows-native versions of their products.
Reply
justin said 10:53PM on 1-22-2006
"Between WINE, CodeWeavers Crossover Office, and Trnasgaming there is little need to have a dual boot."
Transgaming? Alright, so where's my copy of HL2 for OS X? Even if it is not a _need_, the ability to run Windows on Mac hardware is definitely a _want_. The only time I use Windows at home is for gaming - so I need to maintain a second computer for that purpose. But if I could boot my "Quad 3.0GHz MacIntel" into Windows and run HL2 it would be fantastic - and with Apple finally shipping better graphic cards, it's plenty powerful for all but the most hardcore gamer, the kind of gamer that would shun a Mac anyway. =)
Reply
Chris said 11:02PM on 1-22-2006
Dual booting is not THE answer, but it is AN answer. I'll gladly take it, while waiting for some type of virtualization app to materialize. I use my PC for one or two apps, but I need those apps. My aging dual G4 867 covers everything else (as noisily as it possibly can). I want an iMac. I can't display my PC video on an iMac. So, I can't dump my setup and get an iMac until I can run Windows apps on it.
I'm surprised it's taking this long to figure out...
Reply
Reg Muffet said 11:06PM on 1-22-2006
It wouldn't be the first time Macs have booted Windows...
Those with short memories (and no knowledge of Apple pre-Jobs' return) may not know that Apple used to actually sell machines that could dual boot Windows.
There were both 68k-based Macs called by names like the "LC 630 DOS Compatible" and the "Quadra 610 DOS Compatible" released in 1994, and PowerPC-based Macs, called "Power Macintosh 4400" released in 1996
These computers had cards installed in them containing x86 chips, which allowed the Mac to boot into DOS and Windows. On-board RAM was shared with the Mac.
Specs here:
http://lowendmac.com/quadra/lc630dos.shtml
http://www.lowendmac.com/quadra/q610dos.shtml
However, before Apple would do this again, hell would freeze over and Jobs would take a starring role in Disney On Ice...
Er, what's this I'm reading about Jobs & Disney?!
Reply
LD said 11:14PM on 1-22-2006
justin, Halo 2 isn't supported yet. That doesn't mean it can't work in the future. Most gamers want boxes with a million lights and 8 million fans so they wouldn't be in the market for an iMac anyway. Not to mention it's an LCD and gamers don't generally dig LCDs because of the response time.
Other than the "hardcore gamers" there is a plenty large market that would be perfectly happy to run those very few Windows only apps on their Mac via one of the three options I gave.
Reply
Dezro said 11:40PM on 1-22-2006
The thing about Apple supporting Windows apps is that Mac ports of Windows software will stop. For instance, Adobe might not consider it worthwhile to spend the extra time getting a Carbon Photoshop to work when the Windows one works fine on a Mac. Well, maybe not Adobe, but you get my point. Less Mac software means that less people will want to buy a Mac.
Basically, you want to keep dual-booting and WINE to the nerdiest people so that the less nerdy Mac users still have a need for Mac versions of Office, Photoshop, World of Warcraft, etc.
Reply
Q DuB said 12:09AM on 1-23-2006
#7 - I completely agree with you! Very well said, and you bring up some true and interesting points.
Reply
Jason torres said 12:23AM on 1-23-2006
answer to your question it will only work with windows vista on dual boot and windows xp wont work on intel macbook pro only VISTA so u gonna have to wait till october this is coming from a kid who got shot in da ghetto
Reply