Windows on a Mac?

Most everyone knows there is a cash prize out to anyone that can run Windows XP on an Intel Mac natively. Most of us don't realize why this is impossible at the moment, but it's pretty simple actually. OS's make calls to the system's BIOS or comparable software layer that then hands the calls off to the hardware firmware. While the BIOS has been around for decades now, Intel and the Open Source guys have started to stray away. Intel has developed EFI to replace it, and the Open Source guys have Open Firmware. Apple got on the Open Firmware band wagon years ago with the G4, and has stayed away from a conventional BIOS ever since. Steve Jobs was in no way attempting to keep Windows off the Mac, he just didn't want to change what the Mac has always been: A techical marvel in itself.

So Windows XP needs a BIOS to make calls to, and the Mac doesn't have it. It has Intel's EFI replacing the Open Firmware of the Power PC generation. At this point you have to start wondering when the Intel Non-Power Mac shows up, what kind of video cards will you be able to plug into it? I can see Apple getting away from the "You must have special firmware" camp and moving into a unified driver system that will allow users to grab the latest Quadro and slap it in there. We should definately see some SLI coming, and some other good things aswell. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

The main reason I wanted to bring up all of this is an article I just read from the master of all things computer, John C. Dvorak. Pretty funny read actually, although his skills at getting a point across are poor to say the least. It took me a couple times to just understand all the points that he slammed into the first couple paragraphs. Basically what he says is that Apple is looking to consolidate into more of a hardware/gadget company and they will ditch the Unix-based MacOS for a Windows-based OS with their own custom interface.

Now anyone that has just a Mac in the past 20 years knows that Apple has always had a Mac OS. It started with the original Mac OS on the Macintosh, and thankfully moved up into the glorious Mac OSX that we all should love and adore now. I guess what Dvorak is seeing is the trend for Apple to move from a totally Mac OS and into using other standards for the basis of their OS. Granted, they developed Darwin from standard Unix's and even kept it Open Source. That's right, you can run Darwin on whatever you want. It's the GUI that Apple wants to keep to themselves so badly as to threaten those that would make it easy to install Mac OSX on any Intel machine.

I think what Dvorak is missing is that there are several reasons why people by Mac's. First off is the hardware. Apple has always put the highest quality parts in their machines (forgiving a brief coupling with Maxtor) and has always put it in an attractive package. Yes, Apple will always be a hardware company, but there will always be Mac OS aswell. That's the second reason people buy Macs. I've been threatening to get one myself for a long time now. I use one at my morning job, and love it. In fact I'm writing this on Camino for Mac, which works fantastically BTW. Mac users simply wouldn't tolerate having that Microsoft stuff under the hood of anything Mac. It's just not an option.

So John Dvorak has a few points, and I'd like to offer the counters:

1. "The first was that the Apple Switch ad campaign was over, and nobody switched"
1. I think that campaign was actually fairly successful. I know several people that bought Macs around that time period because they were sick of malware being such an issue. Apple has moved on, and music is their big thing now.
2. "The second was that the iPod lost its FireWire connector because the PC world was the new target audience"
1. WHAAA!! The iPod lost its FireWire connector because it was more expensive to keep both than to just use the one that everyone's got. Remember, when the iPod was launched, USB2 was seldom seen, and IEEE1394 was the only viable option.
3. "although the iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, this didn't happen"
1. Here's another one of those things where you can say that the iPod was designed to sell Macs, but I think it was to sell iTunes, and that's worked very well. If Jobs kept iTunes to the Mac, it would've been used to sell Macs, but iTunes and the iPod sell each other, there's no Mac involved.
4. "Apple had switched to the Intel microprocessor"
1. We're still arguing about this one. Honestly, I think Jobs was sick of being the bottom rung on IBM's ladder. Face it, IBM didn't respect Apple, and didn't give them enough respect. Intel is doing more for Jobs than any other company would excepting maybe AMD. I just hope that Intel doesn't piss him off anytime soon. The Intel move has nothing to do with Windows though, as Mac OSX has been crossplatform from day one.
5. "Apple's freak-out and lawsuits over Macintosh gossip sites that ran stories about a musicians' breakout box that has yet to be shipped."
1. How does moving to Windows explain that one? Someone please help me out here.
6. "the odd comment at the Macworld Expo by a Microsoft spokesperson that Microsoft Office will continue to be developed for the Mac for "five years." What happens after that?"
1. You sign another contract. Duh! Why would MS want to commit to anything for more than 5 years?
7. "Adobe and other high-end apps were not ported to the Apple x86 platform when it was announced in January."
1. I think this is because Apple kept the actual release dates a secret and noone really expected to see Intel-Macs this soon. Really, we're not seeing any serious power machines yet, like Towers or even Macbooks. Adobe will release it's Universal Binaries with CS3, along with other great advances.
8. "At Macworld, most observers said that these new Macs could indeed run Windows now"
1. Close! Not quite though. See above.
9. "By maintaining its own OS, Apple would have to suffer endless complaints about peripherals that don't work"
1. Actually, Mac OS seeing peripherals different from how Windows does and in turn has less issues with them. For instance, take my cable box, a Moto DCT-6200. On the Mac, you plug it in and Mac OS knows it's a Firewire DV device. On Windows, you have to find a hacked up DVR driver to make it work.
10. "Chat rooms are filled with the likes of 'How do I get my DVD burner to run on Linux?'"
1. I threw this one in just for fun. I like to point out when the most esteemed people make the stupidest comments. Anyone ever seen that on a Linux forum in the past 2 years? Now TV Tuners, Sound Cards, and all other proprietary devices, he has a point on. I know it took 3 or 4 kernel revisions before sound came out of my laptop years ago.
11. " Apple has a master showman, Steve Jobs. He'll announce that now everything can run on a Mac. He'll say that the switch to Windows gives Apple the best of both worlds. He'll say this is not your daddy's Windows"
1. I hope that Jobs has read this article. No one could ever sell Windows to a Mac user, not even him. I'm pretty sure he knows it too.

So before everyone gets all excited about Windows on the Mac, I hope I've given you enough information that will prove otherwise. I love Mac OS, and I hope that it will always be here. If I'm wrong, it will be a very sad day when Apple tries to compete with the PC makers. They just aren't that good. Mac OS makes the Mac, always has and always will.