Coffeehouse Thread

17 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

So for real (XP on Intel Mac)?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Cybermagell​an

    http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/3/13/3169

    Infinite Loop wrote:
    According to a post by narf2006, a user who is said to be very credible on the "WinXP on Mac" forums and has been diligently hacking away since the challenged started, the magic has officially happened and he has submitted his super secret process to the owners of the site to review. His proof offered up in the thread, however, is a Flickr set of photos (some better than others) of what appears to be Windows XP (will the real WinXP please stand up?) on what we assume to be an Intel iMac.

    Of course, immediate reaction tends to be "zomg Photochop lol!" And I won't say that that wasn't my initial reaction either. However, upon further inspection of the currently available evidence, there may be more to this rumor than mad chops. A post titled "Mission Accomplished - twice almost" on the Windows on Mac blog appears to indicate that narf2006's processes are (almost) reproducible and there is even a thread on the forums now asking for testers—three for MacBook Pros, three for iMacs, and three for Mac minis. 



    The website hosting the contest is offering him $12,000.00 for the process...

  • User profile image
    Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    Looks real enough--  the guy was a regular poster on the forum and the guy sponsoring the challenge said it appears to be legit.

  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    I would sell the process as shareware, make some money.  To bad his host suspended his account which furthers my suspicion that Apple and Microsoft have some kind of deal to keep Windows off of the Intel Macs.

  • User profile image
    arunpv

    Why the heck people install XP on a Intel Mac what r they trying to do, developer XP-Mac software or try to install Visual Studio.Why can't they stick to Mac on IntelMac[H]

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    Student:  Teacher, why climb the mountain?
    Teacher:  Because it is there.

    Unless both Apple and Microsoft change their business model drastically, there doesn't seem to be a business reason for running XP on a Mac (or OS X on a PC), but it would be kind of nifty to show that it could happen. 

    You'd have a tough time convincing hardware manufacturers to release drivers for either platform to run on the other, so I can't see this solving the major issue of "Apple has doodly-squat when in comes to games".

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    arunpv wrote:
    Why the heck people install XP on a Intel Mac what r they trying to do, developer XP-Mac software or try to install Visual Studio.Why can't they stick to Mac on IntelMac


    Because unlike most ATX/BTX PCs, Macs look good Smiley

    Sure, casemods exist, but they rarely have the "graceful" appearance of an Apple. Whilst attempts have been made to match it, they've all been by the budget PC market using poor-quality components and whilst sticking to the ATX form-factor.

    Still, I'm happy with my Chieftec.

  • User profile image
    arunpv

    W3bbo wrote:
    arunpv wrote: Why the heck people install XP on a Intel Mac what r they trying to do, developer XP-Mac software or try to install Visual Studio.Why can't they stick to Mac on IntelMac



    Because unlike most ATX/BTX PCs, Macs look good

    Sure, casemods exist, but they rarely have the "graceful" appearance of an Apple. Whilst attempts have been made to match it, they've all been by the budget PC market using poor-quality components and whilst sticking to the ATX form-factor.

    Still, I'm happy with my Chieftec.



    I am happy with XP on my P4:D

    One question i don't understand why is Apple's Mac OS is better then Windows. Can someone give one good reason to stick with XP?

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    arunpv wrote:

    I am happy with XP on my P4

    One question i don't understand why is Apple's Mac OS is better then Windows. Can someone give one good reason to stick with XP?



    If you stick with XP, then 99.9999% of the applications you use today will still work in 10 years.

  • User profile image
    TimP

    [C]Although if you consider 10 years ago, Windows 95 had just come out a few months earlier and there were still a lot of 16-bit apps around. If you use Windows XP x64 or Vista x64 you can't use 16-bit apps. However, most people probably don't even use 16-bit apps anymore. I can't think of a single one I use.

    I'd say if you use Windows you have a much better chance of your apps working in 10 years than with OS X.

  • User profile image
    arunpv

    TimP wrote:
    Although if you consider 10 years ago, Windows 95 had just come out a few months earlier and there were still a lot of 16-bit apps around. If you use Windows XP x64 or Vista x64 you can't use 16-bit apps. However, most people probably don't even use 16-bit apps anymore. I can't think of a single one I use.

    I'd say if you use Windows you have a much better chance of your apps working in 10 years than with OS X.




    Hmmm.... I still use tetris dos version on XP:D
    I think i know the answer. If I use OSX i am stuck i can't get a decent job in computers. But with Windows I can even try in M$Big Smile
    Cool...

  • User profile image
    arunpv

    Maurits wrote:
    10 years old? Bah! I use sendmail (13 years old) and guess what... it runs on OS X, but not XP.

    But you didn't get a decent Job at M$Tongue Out

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    arunpv wrote:
    One question i don't understand why is Apple's Mac OS is better then Windows. Can someone give one good reason to stick with XP?


    Apple's OS-9's codebase was just yet another hack on an already aging OS who'se codebase was nearly 20 years old. They had to perform a lot of ret-conning in order for them to switch to Darwin (and OS-X) in the early 2000's.

    Microsoft anticipated this for a while, so they developed the NT kernel long before OS-X and moved everyone to it after their estranged child, Windows ME went out.

    Windows XP's main failing is it's poor UI. Apple, however, has style consultants that ensured that OS-X looks good.

    Of course, the Apple platform doesn't have as many VB-developer-types for it, so whilst they have less programs available to them, they are of a higher quality. As well as Apple being able to control the kernel-mode hardware drivers better than Microsoft. (Lest we recall the horror of USB ADSL modems *shudder!*)

  • User profile image
    Maurits

    10 years old? Bah! I use sendmail (23 years old) and guess what... it runs on OS X, but not XP.

    EDIT: fixed age

  • User profile image
    arunpv

    W3bbo wrote:
    arunpv wrote: One question i don't understand why is Apple's Mac OS is better then Windows. Can someone give one good reason to stick with XP?


    Apple's OS-9's codebase was just yet another hack on an already aging OS who'se codebase was nearly 20 years old. They had to perform a lot of ret-conning in order for them to switch to Darwin (and OS-X) in the early 2000's.

    Microsoft anticipated this for a while, so they developed the NT kernel long before OS-X and moved everyone to it after their estranged child, Windows ME went out.

    Windows XP's main failing is it's poor UI. Apple, however, has style consultants that ensured that OS-X looks good.

    Of course, the Apple platform doesn't have as many VB-developer-types for it, so whilst they have less programs available to them, they are of a higher quality. As well as Apple being able to control the kernel-mode hardware drivers better than Microsoft. (Lest we recall the horror of USB ADSL modems *shudder!*)


    You got a point. Let me find my old Mac disk.. Oops its in my trash....Smiley

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    W3bbo wrote:
    Microsoft anticipated this for a while, so they developed the NT kernel long before OS-X and moved everyone to it after their estranged child, Windows ME went out.

    The way I understand it, MS didn't really intend for any more DOS-based Windows releases after the first Windows NT came out in 1993. Unfortunately, performance, compatibility and usability issues made NT unsuitable for the average consumer. These issues weren't fully resolved until XP was released.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Sven Groot wrote:
    W3bbo wrote:Microsoft anticipated this for a while, so they developed the NT kernel long before OS-X and moved everyone to it after their estranged child, Windows ME went out.

    The way I understand it, MS didn't really intend for any more DOS-based Windows releases after the first Windows NT came out in 1993. Unfortunately, performance, compatibility and usability issues made NT unsuitable for the average consumer. These issues weren't fully resolved until XP was released.


    Ah, right; I was wondering why it took them 8 years. (Well, 6 years if you count Windows 2000 as being "consumer-ready")

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    W3bbo wrote:
    Sven Groot wrote:
    W3bbo wrote: Microsoft anticipated this for a while, so they developed the NT kernel long before OS-X and moved everyone to it after their estranged child, Windows ME went out.

    The way I understand it, MS didn't really intend for any more DOS-based Windows releases after the first Windows NT came out in 1993. Unfortunately, performance, compatibility and usability issues made NT unsuitable for the average consumer. These issues weren't fully resolved until XP was released.


    Ah, right; I was wondering why it took them 8 years. (Well, 6 years if you count Windows 2000 as being "consumer-ready")

    Windows 2000 was supposed to be "it", hence the name which implies it was the successor to Windows 98 while it's not. Unfortunately, once again they didn't make it, and Win2k had already been delayed for more than enough so MS decided to once again not release it as a consumer OS just so they could release it before 2000. Most of XP was work that was supposed to go into 2000 to make it consumer-ready but that was postponed to meet the schedule. Windows Me was a stop-gap solution to hack some of the features of Win2k into the 9x codebase, as well as introduce some new stuff that would later make it into XP (such as system restore and movie maker).

    At least, that's the story as I've heard it.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.