Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Windows Drivers for Mac Rolling Out

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wed Mar 22, 2006 09:27 AM
from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.
Businesses Apple
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."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Windows Drivers for Mac Rolling Out 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • This says it all really (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kangburra (911213) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:34AM (#14971316)
    TUAW [tuaw.com]

  • If you're not part of the Windows Solution (Score:5, Funny)

    by LiftOp (637065) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:35AM (#14971323) Homepage
    ...you're part of the Windows Problem, I guess.

  • iBook user says... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lave (958216) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:36AM (#14971326)
    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... (Score:5, Informative)

      by darkmeridian (119044) <william@chuang.gmail@com> on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:59AM (#14971510) Homepage
      My firm reimburses only for Windows-compatible laptop purchases. Until now, I was stuck with a Thinkpad T60 with the CoreDuo but now I can argue that I can get a MacBook Pro. See?
    • Also remember that some people actually *like* running Windows. Your idea of "the good stuff" might equal someone else's idea of "the nightmare stuff" ;)

      • Re:iBook user says... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by 10Ghz (453478) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @10:13AM (#14971632)
        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*. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sierran (155611) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:37AM (#14971328)
    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.
    • Where in the world do you work that your company would allow you to (a) choose your hardware, and (b) have any say in what OS is installed? Pretty much everywhere I've ever worked, these decisions are made by IT for funding, legal, and technical reasons.

      I understand why one would want to have a triple boot machine... that sounds very nice. But as far as finding a company that would allow you to buy one with company funds, use a hack to get Windows running, and then install the software they own on a com

  • Cool (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hektor_Troy (262592) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:40AM (#14971355)
    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? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gurutc (613652) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:41AM (#14971371)
    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.

  • Lord of the... (Score:5, Funny)

    by maillemaker (924053) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:42AM (#14971377)
    "Do you know how the orcs came to be? They were elves once." :)

    Steve

  • Complete and Working Windows (Score:3, Funny)

    by digitaldc (879047) * on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:43AM (#14971389)
    Mac users now have a complete and working Windows solution.

    Cool! Now maybe they can sell it to Microsoft to get their Windows solution to work too?

  • Ball in Microsoft's court... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SRCShelton (9180) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:48AM (#14971417) Homepage

    If Microsoft has any sense, they'll make damn sure that Vista supports all of the hardware that Apple uses. Any additional retail Windows sales they might get from this have got to be good (because how many people buy Windows off the shelf nowadays?) - and isn't 5% of the market a lot to ignore?

    They'll never do a "Windows for Apple" - it'd be too easy for Apple to pull the rug from under them - but I wouldn't be surprised if Vista quietly gains support for the non-working components and 32bit EFI, and that this quickly becomes the worst kept secret in computing...

  • Geez Guys (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thefirelane (586885) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:48AM (#14971422)
    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.
  • Great! Now we just need the final piece of the puzzle: something that will let me run that same installation of Windows as an OS X application, the same way OS X runs OS 9 on PPC Macs.

    Because I need to run Windows apps occasionally during the day, but having to boot back and forth to do it would seriously suck.

    I'm sure someone's working on it, and that someone is going to take a lot of sales from any future version of VirtualPC that will run on the MacIntels. (And that'll be what you deserve for dragging your feet, Microsoft.)

    ~Philly

  • Can things really be that different. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by matgorb (562145) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:57AM (#14971489)
    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...

  • I am dual booting and it is amazing! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by soapvox (573037) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:58AM (#14971497)
    For someone like me who uses 75% mac and have to do a few PC things for work this is great. I travel a lot and I am about to go on my first roadshow in a week where I wont have to lug around 2 computers as I have been for the past 3 years. I have tried Virtual PC, Qemu and even remote desktop and nothing was ever a complete solution, this is. So all those asking why, thats why!

  • Excuse me? (Score:3, Informative)

    by diamondsw (685967) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @10:01AM (#14971526)
    Doesn't look like all of these drivers are working from here [onmac.net].

  • For those of you looking for a VMWare/ solution... (Score:3, Informative)

    by AugstWest (79042) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @10:09AM (#14971596)
    qemu [bellard.free.fr] has been ported to the Mactels, as is WinTel [openosx.com] from openosx.com.

    Of course, there's always Darwine [opendarwin.org] as well.

  • More software! (Score:3, Funny)

    by lancejjj (924211) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @10:42AM (#14971906) Homepage
    Good deal! There are thousands and thousands of software products that are only available on Windows, and now I can run them on my Mac!

    For instance, Norton AntiVirus for Windows, Adware Destroyer Plus, and so many other titles only work well under Windows.

  • This question might make heads explode, but (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Catbeller (118204) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @11:54AM (#14972545) Homepage
    I know this may be considered silly, but: I don't care to run XP. I run Windows 2000, because I own legal copies, because the OS is rock solid, because it doesn't seem to vacuum up the viruses and spyware that XP does, it doesn't spy on my system and phone home to Redmond (oh, XP will, just give it time), and finally, 2000 doesn't shut itself off I change too many hardware components, and require me to beg Redmond to turn it back on. It just works. And I really don't care about games.

    Is this massive knowledge base being built for installing XP applicable or adaptable to installing 2000 on the Mac? Drivers, yup. That would be a problem. But generally?

    • arrrg (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anubis350 (772791) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:38AM (#14971335)
      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 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Trelane (16124) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @10:39AM (#14971879) Journal
        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 ;).

    • Because Microsoft have done their very best to prevent operating systems other than Windows from being compatible with Windows. MS Office won't even be out on Mac for months yet! (maybe years, considering Vista delays)

      DirectX ensures that no operating system will ever run games quite as well as Windows will, unless game developers drop DirectX. (which they should do, considering that OpenGL + SDL can mean that almost no code changes would be necessary to compile a game for almost any platform)

    • Re:Counterproductive? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ebooher (187230) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:49AM (#14971434) Homepage Journal

      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:Counterproductive? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nutznboltz2003 (832752) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:54AM (#14971472) Homepage
      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

    • Re:Counterproductive? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by xtracto (837672)
      The funny thing is, even sone Microsoft products are more complete on OSX than in Windows [google.co.uk]

    • Re:Hurray! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Ravenscall (12240) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:41AM (#14971365)
      Unpimp my Mac?

      MS representing on the Apple tip ya'll.

    • Tired argument. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ntxb229 (542609) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @10:02AM (#14971541)
      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. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hal2814 (725639)
        To further flesh out the gaming argument, even if you're considering a game that exists on both platforms, the Windows version usually comes out sooner and costs less than its Mac counterpart. Why spend $50 for the Mac version of a year old game when you can spend $20 for the Windows version (or even spend $50 but get it a year earlier)?

        • Re:Tired argument. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by bsane (148894) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @10:57AM (#14972018)
          Of course this could also have the effect of completely killing the Mac game market*. Even games that are currently cross-platform might have been released Windows only if there was a simple way to dual boot to XP.

          *I know the market isn't that big, but some things like WoW and Quake and such are nice to have.

          • Re:Tired argument. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by hal2814 (725639) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @11:34AM (#14972346)
            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.

        • Re:Tired argument. (Score:3, Informative)

          by TobyWong (168498)
          If you like using the keyboard for navigation try out Quicksilver for OS-X. You can set it up to do damn near anything and assign whatever keystrokes you want.

        • Re:Tired argument. (Score:4, Informative)

          by Theaetetus (590071) <danrose@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday March 22 2006, @10:50AM (#14971961) Homepage Journal
          Or you simply might like using XP more than OSX. Say, if you use the keyboard for navigation, you won't like OSX at all.

          Really? [apple.com] Voice Navigation [apple.com] works too. And of course, there's always the Terminal for old skool keyboard navigation.

                • Re:Tired argument. (Score:5, Informative)

                  by theAtomicFireball (532233) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @01:24PM (#14973521)
                  What about drop-down (select) boxes? You can't tab to those, yet they take input from the keyboard (up/down to select items)...

                  Yes, you can. It's not set that way by default, but if you go into System Preferences->Keyboard & Mouse under the Keyboard Shortcuts tab, there's a radio button that allows you to change it so that all controls can be tabbed to. "All" controls includes Pop-up menus, drop-down lists, and combo boxes.

                  I don't use DreamWeaver, but unless they've implemented custom controls (possible), then it should work once you've selected this radio button. If it doesn't, then it's Macromedia's fault for not implementing a control that follows the Universal Access guidelines.

    • Re:Hurray! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by CastrTroy (595695)
      Yes, but i can't afford to have 2 computers (Or I don't want to take up the space, or some other excuse), and since I need windows sometimes, I have to have a windows machine. Now, If I can buy 1 computer that runs both Mac and windows, I'd be more likely to do so. I would buy a Mac just because I like it, not because of any specific piece of software.

      • Re:Superior hardware? Last I checked it's not... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Synesthesiatic (679680) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @10:27AM (#14971768) Homepage
        Uh..what? Apple screamed that it didn't need USB? Last time I checked Apple was the first (or one of the first) manufacturers to ditch legacy ports and go USB-only..back in 1998.

        As for SMP Apple released the dual processor Power Mac 9500 in 1995. They started using PCI around 1996.

        "Well we all know how that turned out..."

        Apparently not.

        • Re:Hurray! (Score:5, Informative)

          by ceoyoyo (59147) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @01:18PM (#14973418)
          Um, go check out the Apple Store. They released a new mini. Core Solo or Core Duo (so much for slow), optical audio in AND out, works great with USB and Firewire TV video capture devices, up to 120 GB 7200 RPM HD, very easy to add external Firewire or USB drives (costs you the price of the drive +$30 for a case), gigabyte ethernet, airport, Front Row and remote.

          The only problem is the shared memory graphics, but that's irrelevant unless you want to play games. Seriously, it's a great computer for the price, particularly as a media/file/web/etc. server.

    • Re:Don't run your car on railroads.......... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by feijai (898706) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @09:50AM (#14971442)
      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".
    • The average Mac user made a conscious choice to use a Mac rather than Windows. One popular argument to choose a Mac is because it's easier to use than Windows, so 'getting addicted to Windows' is not very likely for a Mac user.

    • The answer (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Weaselmancer (533834)

      To prove that you can. A lot of Slashdot is about that. "Because you can" answers a lot of Slashdot questions. Why modify your case to look like a Borg cube? Why port Linux to your PDA?

      Hacking is about curiosity, first and foremost. And there was a question out there...how much like a PC are the new x86 Macs? And running Windows on it answers the question with authority.

    • Who said this was ticking us off... Most of us WANT to run windows on our Intel macs simply so we can use what by all standards is a much superior operating system, but still run products made by companys who cant get their head out of their asses and make OS X builds. Same thing Linux users have been doing for ages.

    • Re:VMWare (Score:4, Interesting)

      by wandazulu (265281) on Wednesday March 22 2006, @10:16AM (#14971666)
      I asked this very question and the answer was a cagey "stay tuned for an announcement...". I suppose they could come back and say "no way, no how", but I see no reason why they wouldn't, short of some insurmountable technical hurdle, which given the miracles VMWare performs on a daily basis for me, doesn't seem likely.

      I think it'd be win-win for them...VirtualPC is now controlled by Microsoft and maybe they'll update it, maybe they won't, but VMWare has nothing to lose, and they have the better product as well. This could very well be one of the most killer apps for the Mac platform. Sad, but I'd rather take my Mac to work and run Windows under VMWare than use a POS Dell.

      I'd say that getting VMWare would be the most popular app available on an Intel Mac after (maybe before) Office. Plus the fact that VMWare's guest OS can fill the screen when running locally, it's like dual booting but without the lack of stability. :)

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.