Windows on Macs: The Average-Joe magnet

[Mikuro]

From what we've heard so far, it seems like Windows will probably be usable on Apple's Intel-based Macs. However, Phil Schiller said they will not support it. I think they should. Before you start throwing things at me, hear me out:

Say you're an average PC user in the market for a new PC. You see two choices: An Apple and a Dell. They have the same marketable numbers (i.e., clock speed), BUT, if you buy the Apple, you can run Windows AND Mac OS X. If you buy the Dell, you can only run Windows. Which one are you going to buy? Probably the Apple.

This clear advantage — that Apples can do everything other PCs can, and more — will go a long way toward justifying the slightly higher prices of Apples. [Apple's switch to Intel does NOT mean they'll be competing with the likes of Dell on price; Dell's machines are so cheap because A) they suck, and B) they have smaller profit margins. Apple's not going to ship a Mac with no graphics card like Dell does, and they'll most likely keep their margins right where they are.]

So, once you see that the Apple is pretty much undeniably better (again, it can do everything any other PC can and more!), what's going to happen? You buy it, you boot it, you start using OS X, and you quickly realize you won't need Windows — ever.

I think this could do big things for Apple's market share, especially in the months leading up to Longhorn's release, when many PC users will be encouraged to buy new hardware and they'll need to buy Longhorn separately anyway.

I think Apple should jump at this chance. Support Windows. Advertise it. Make it clear that a Mac can do it all, and is more functional than any other brand. I think Apple should launch a two-pronged advertising campaign: one selling hardware, and stressing the Windows compatibility; and one trumpeting the superiority of OS X and Apple's software. Reel 'em in any way you can. Whether someone buys it for the hardware or the software, they're probably going to end up a Mac user.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em — and then beat 'em.

[HomunQlus]

You don't understand. OS X is a Unix system. A damn good one. Windows is only an ongoing try, I think even the final versions that come out are only Beta versions. Windows is not Unix based, and that brings a lot of problems.

Windows is far more open to Virus attacks. Should Apple advertise for a system that can be attacked by viruses while their own, Mac OS X, is virus-free (in the moment) ? I don't see much sense in that.

[HateEternal]

OOoooooo you bring up an interesting point that I hadn't though about...

How do you know that apple isn't going to start shipping out lower end computers (iBooks, minis) with intel integrated graphics? I hope we don't see that but as far as market share goes, intel has the largest because a majority of the computers that consumers buy are not gaming machines and just have the onboard video.

[HomunQlus]

I think they will do something similar to the graphic card what they've done in the iMac G5 and current PowerBooks. We'll see...

[Pengu]

Anyone buying an iBook shouldn't expect Radeon or NVidia FX graphics.

and. Apple would be better off offering a "blue box" or "red box" (whatever they used to have back in OpenStep) base it on Wine, or a simmilar product. don't BOOT windows, create an environment that will run windows apps. this of course, like booting to windows, will give companies like adobe a reason to stop Mac versions of it's apps.

[MacFreak]

I think they start to sell low end first since PowerMac speed bump last month or so. It tend start from bottom to top.. So, I am sure apple foucs on mini mac, ibook and powerbook at MacWorld expo 2006 and will tell us about new PowerMac along timeline..

[nixgeek]

What might happen is that we'll see Windows installed (and also supported) from within Mac OS X. But instead of using software emulation for hardware such as video and other devices, images for the HDs, etc., we'll see that actual Mac hardware being used which means that you might expect close to the same performance on a Windows environment running along Mac OS X. The complaint with Virtual PC under Mac OS X was that it was dog slow. If this environment is running in similar fashion as Virtual PC but instead using the actual Mac hardware (since it will be x86) for driving the OS, it could mean the ability to actually use software that requires more performance (translation: games and multimedia).

[fjdouse]

Dangerous

I'm reading more and more comments here about having Windows running natively on a Mac without fully weighing the implications, not just the short term ones but the medium to long term too.

WANTING to have a Mac which can have Windows installed onto it, is WANTING a PC - not a Mac. You (whoever) are saying that you want Apple to build a *PC called a Mac*. It will no longer be a Mac at all, just another PC with perhaps a chip to TEMPORARILY prevent non-Apple PC users running OSX. (Which BTW, in time will be cracked AND in time will lead to Apple not even bothering to try and prevent it's use on non-Apple PCs. End of game for Apple. Sorry, but OSX competing DIRECTLY with Microsoft IS SUICIDE, you live in Cuckooland if you don't see it.)

We don't WANT a PC called a Mac, can you not see why that is a step down the wrong path? Apple will make attractive boxes.. for a while. But really, beneath the hype, the BRAND, even under the BLIND fanaticism of the Mac elitists who'd follow Jobs off the Intel cliff, Apple would be JUST ANOTHER BLAND PC MAKER, like Dell or HP. The only difference is IT would have it's own OS, which it will desparately TRY to keep control over. I keep hearing these fantasy scenarios about Apple competing with Microsoft over X, Y or Z. Pointless, competition is NOT always a good thing, Apple has something no other computer maker has, a protected, controlled platform and a dedicated niche market.

IF Apple are to survive this change, they will build new computers designed around the Intel CPUs, not create PC boards. This will help them retain the all-important control they need.

But running Windows IS possible and CAN be implemented by Apple in a controlled manner by providing a virtual machine in a similar manner to VMware. Then XP, or indeed Longhorn will run at close-to-native speed and provide a credible alternative to PCs while still retaining the control Jobs will want to keep, in fact it could work a bit like Classic mode. This would NOT be a solution for gaming however, buy a console for that.