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."

Comments

iBook user says...

[Lave]

Disclaimer - I use an Mac OS X 10.4, and Linux Scientific Linux distro's daily. I haven't used Windows for almost 2 years.

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!

Re:iBook user says...

[10Ghz]

Because they want only one machine, instead of two you dimwit? Why exactly should they buy additional machine, when they could get just one machine that runs both OS'es? Would it REALLY be cheaper for the user to buy a Mac for OS X, and then buy a PC for windows, as opposed to just buying the Mac, and running both OS'es on it? Do you enjoy carrying two laptops around? Don't you just love the clutter in your study when you have several computers there? Hell, maybe they just love Apple-hardware, but want to use Windows instead of OS X?

Because you *can*.

[Sierran]

You can use Mac OS X with proper drivers (i.e. written by Apple, as they intended) and now (if you want to) you can use any 'Windows Only' applications that may be foisted upon you by, say, your job. Come on, people, it's not rocket science. Plus, when Linux is fully up, you'll have a completely triple-boot machine. All of which makes it even harder for the beancounters in your enterprise job(tm) to say "No, you can't have one of those because it can't run Approved Software(tm)".

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

[Anubis350]

I see this comment on every thread dealing with this. Here are the answers:

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

Re:arrrg

[Trelane]

My take on this, as a full-time Linux user:

1)Why not? It's geeky, it's fun, it's what being a nerd is all about.

Can't argue with that one at all.

2)Games. What if you want to be productive on OSX but want to reboot to play some win-only games every so often

In the short-run, this is a great take. In the long-run, however, it is not. This'll repeat often, so I'll italicize it when it comes up: if you buy Windows software, you'll get Windows software. While it seems trite, the fact is that you're voting with your wallet, and if you buy a Windows game, there's little impetus for the developers to develop for Mac--some (or heavens forbid most) of the (already arguably almost negligible) Mac userbase will already have Windows and will use it. This is yet another of Linux's chicken-and-egg problems: be as compatible as possible to help ease transitions to Linux, but generally then there's no need to support Linux because your app targeting Windows will run on Linux just fine. There are, of course, other chicken-and-egg problems such as getting a countable userbase and hardware vendors to actually have some support for us, but this is a huge one as well.

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.

Thus far, there's always been a Mac version of the Big Two (TaxCut and TurboTax). I know, because I keep eyeing it with envy. ;) If you just buy the Windows version, This Will Change. Additionally, you can do what many of us Linux users do and use the web-based one.

And again, if you buy Windows software, you'll get Windows software.

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.

This is also a good reason, though I'd argue that vmware is the better route, if you can afford it.

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.

Same as #4.

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.

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 ;).

Cool

[Hektor_Troy]

Lots of people griping about the use of it, but who cares about that? It's like asking about why you'd dual boot Linux and Windows.

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.

Good for Developers?

[gurutc]

I would think that application developers would benefit from having a single, dual-boot system to develop in two flavors. Maybe this will benefit the Mac community by making it easier for resource-strapped app innovators to buy a macintel box that lets them server OSX and Windows app consumer markets.

Geez Guys

[thefirelane]

Everyone, please ... repeat after me:

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?

[ebooher]

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..........

[feijai]

So far MAC users were proud of their closed door OS which runs on specific hardware, is bullet proof and user friendly.. Why now MAC user want to even try to run windows on their highly expensive hardware? What happend once average MAC user gets addicted to supereasy but insecure windows? Will MAC loose or increase their marketshare? Interesting question

Another interesting question: Will Slashdot ever learn that "Mac" isn't an acronym? It's short for "Macintosh".

Re:Counterproductive?

[nutznboltz2003]

For me, this would be the perfect solution. I am the lone hardware tech for a College (not counting student work study). I have to support both Windows and Mac OS. For me, having a laptop that will let me dual boot means I don't have to worry about grabbing the right bag, or having the right software on hand when I head out and make service calls. It also means that support for either OS is just a reboot away.

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

Can things really be that different.

[matgorb]

First, dual boot is a myth, it is damn annoying and so counterproductive. Most people dont realise that until they actually experiment it, it's hype now, but all Linux users know it's a pain, and I know from experience that a dual boot Windows/Linux means one thing... Windows 90% of the time. Vmware and others solutions are the way to go for people who need Windows professionaly for a given application, I can't wait for a Mac OS X version. Second, some people try to makes us believe that companies will buy Apple PC to their employees now that they can run Windows, yeah right, serious manager will buy more expensive hardware, plus a Windows licence, so that their employees can have an Apple design and the joy of using Mac OS X out of the office... Lastly, Gamers, Well Windows users will probably not switch to Apple hardware to play, it's more expensive, and you'll get a better gaming PC for the price, hardcore gamers don't really care for Apple design, last time I checked it was more neon and see through glass panel...Seriously, You already have to be freaking rich to play seriously on laptop, do you think people will pay even more for an Apple on the back screen... I see this all thing as one big geek experiment, because it is what it is, mostly geek will do it, just because it is fun, but Apple geek will at the end stay under OS X, and Windows geek will soon realise they over paid their Windows laptop...

Tired argument.

[ntxb229]

I'm getting so tired of this argument and I'm not sure why it's been modded funny. There are plenty of reasons putting windows on your mac is worthwhile. For work purposes you may want have to run some windows only applications which won't work under virtualization. For play you may want to boot up some games that are windows only. In academic settings you can buy one machine and tripple boot it (Windows/OSX/Linux). I know my school a lot of the labs already dual boot windows and linux.

Re:Tired argument.

[hal2814]

Releasing Mac versions of games so long after the Windows release and the often higher prices of Mac games vs. their Windows counterpart has done more to kill the Mac gaming market than merely letting you play a Windows game on the Mac box ever could.