The launch of Apple Macintoshes based on Intel processors raises a space-saving — and perhaps a money-saving — idea. Will we be able to run Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X on the same machine?
There are two ways to do this: the first is to buy a Mac and install Windows. Apple executives have stated that they will not try to prevent this. The second is to run Mac OS X on a standard PC. The latter has been accomplished with hacked, pre-release versions of Mac OS X Intel code, but Apple is determined to prevent it, so it is not an option for business users.
According to reports, installing Windows XP may not be as simple as first thought: the Intel-based Macs don’t have a standard PC BIOS (Basic input/output system) chip. Instead, Apple is utilising Intel’s Extended Firmware Interface. Intel designed EFI for its next generation Itanium chip, but PC manufacturers haven’t been interested in using it, so Microsoft hasn’t supported it in mass-market versions of Windows.
Whether anyone will find a work-around for XP remains to be seen. However, Windows Vista does include EFI support, so when that arrives, creating dual-boot Macs should not be a problem — or even triple-boot machines for those who want a standalone version of GNU/Linux. (OS X is already based on a version of Unix.)
Possessing the ability to run Windows Vista at native speeds will be a boon for Mac users who need to run some of the vast collection of Windows programs. These include specialised business and accounting programs, as well as vast numbers of corporate programs that are written in-house. At the moment, this can be achieved via an emulator, and Microsoft sells Virtual PC (bought from Connectix) for the purpose. No doubt Microsoft will be delighted to offer boxed copies of Windows Vista to Mac users instead.
People who need to use both types of system could save money and will certainly save space by having one dual-boot machine instead of two. And if it has to be a Mac, then Apple will gain some sales at the PC industry’s expense — although it would be nice to have a choice.
Apple could also benefit by selling Intel-based Macs to people who would like to try a Mac, but have too much time and money invested in their Windows software and hardware to be willing to take the risk. In ball-park terms, Apple only needs to convert 1% of Windows PC sales (around 200 million units a year) to increase Mac sales by almost 50%.
Of course, this is not the first time we have looked forward to an almost-universal desktop system. That was one of the aims of the AIM alliance, formed by Apple, IBM and Motorola in 1991. They worked to create an open PC standard called PReP (PowerPC Reference Platform), later renamed CHRP (Common Hardware Reference Platform). This was intended to run Mac OS, IBM’s OS/2, Windows NT, and several versions of Unix, including Sun’s Solaris. Be’s BeOS and other operating systems would have followed.
The idea was that versatile CHRP PCs would attract enough users, and enough software, to enable the PowerPC chip to displace Intel’s x86 line and change the face of the PC industry. But while IBM and Motorola showed CHRP systems, they were never available running Mac OS, and were not competitive against Intel-based PCs that already ran OS/2, Windows and numerous versions of Unix perfectly well.
Historically, then, Apple has declined two opportunities to separate its operating system from its proprietary hardware. The first was when it declined to take Bill Gates’s advice, offered in 1985, to license Mac OS and make it an industry standard. The second was when it failed to follow through with the objectives of the AIM alliance a decade later.
The move to Intel provides another opportunity to sell Mac OS without bundling it with hardware. This would enable companies to create a wide range of compatible hardware that is currently not available to Mac users — including handhelds, tablet PCs and hi-fi style media servers — and to reach emerging markets where Apple currently has little or no presence.
Shouldn’t Apple take it? – Guardian Unlimited Â