backtop


Print 119 comment(s) - last by hemmy.. on Oct 29 at 2:49 PM


Apple mocks the history of Windows in its latest ads, comparing Windows 7 to such flops as Windows ME.  (Source: Apple)

However, Apple can't seem to resist Microsoft's quality software -- it announced today that it will be offering Boot Camp support for Windows 7 by the end of the year.  (Source: Gizmodo)
As much as Apple pretends not to love Microsoft, it can't seem to stop supporting it

Apple delivered its launch day anti-Windows 7 ads as promised.  The new ads poke fun at Microsoft's history, comparing Windows 7 to past unpopular Windows OS's that were initially lauded.  The new ad flashes back to a younger Vista era PC saying that Vista would have the problems of past Windows... and a Windows ME PC...  and a Windows 2.0 PC.  The new commercials were one of the few downers for Microsoft on a day that was filled with excitement.  

But try as hard as it wants, Apple just can't seem to bring itself to truly rain on Windows 7's launch party.  Truth be told, though Apple will never admit it, its very good friends with Microsoft.  After all, Microsoft offers one of the most popular pieces of software for Macs -- Microsoft Office for Mac.

And for the last three years two of the most popular operating systems on a Mac besides OS X were Windows XP and Windows Vista.  Apple may pretend that Windows is buggy and worthy of scorn, but when it comes down to it, the allure of the productive, functional OS is too much to resist and too much to deny its customers.

Apple even showed Microsoft a bit of love on Windows 7 launch day.  Responding to a deluge of comments from Apple MacBook owners pleading for official Windows 7 Boot Camp support, Apple revealed that it will be adding support for the new OS before the end of the year.

Granted, it won't be adding support for all Macs.  Certain older iMacs and MacBooks Pro from 2006 won't be allowed to use Windows 7.  Its unclear why, considering these computers have Intel processors and in theory could have specs more than capable of running the new OS.

Mac owners looking to get their Windows 7 groove on can probably it already, following the directions posted here.  



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why?
By StevoLincolnite on 10/23/2009 12:55:23 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Certain older iMacs and MacBooks Pro from 2006 won't be allowed to use Windows 7. Its unclear why, considering these computers have Intel processors and in theory could have specs more than capable of running the new OS.


I can tell you why, if there customers want to run Windows 7, they would be forced to splash down another large sum of cash to upgrade to a new Mac just to run the new OS.

If the hardware was in-capable of running the OS I could understand, on the PC front if you had the problem that your hardware was inadequate you would simply do a couple of upgrades and you are set to go.




RE: Why?
By phatboye on 10/23/2009 2:02:08 AM , Rating: 2
... or maybe they don't want to spend developement time writing boot camp drivers for older, no longer supported chipsets and video cards.


RE: Why?
By just4U on 10/23/2009 4:33:09 AM , Rating: 3
I'd say the likely scenario is they don't want windows 7 to breath new life into these older machines... which in theory it could since Win7 does play quite well with older hardware.


RE: Why?
By dark matter on 10/23/2009 7:12:51 AM , Rating: 5
The same chipsets and hardware that windows 7 supports anyway? It's only the BIOS that is different on a mac, the rest is OEM hardware.


RE: Why?
By omnicronx on 10/23/2009 1:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
There still has to be some sort of BIOS emulation going on via EFI. Remember you needed to update your EFI chip to use Bootcamp in the first place, so perhaps there is something missing from earlier Mac's that does not make Windows 7 support possible.

That being said, some of the other scenarios mentioned are just as likely.


RE: Why?
By BlendMe on 10/24/2009 10:55:32 AM , Rating: 2
The 2006 (low end) iMac used the Intel GMA 950 chipset which, as far as I know, Intel doesn't even support on Windows 7. I could be wrong though. The last time I tried it was with Win 7 beta (on a Sony laptop) and I couldn't get Aero to work due to missing drivers. That graphics hardware was pretty crappy so I wouldn't be surprised if Aero didn't work at all. And that could be reason enough for Apple not to support it.

My question is: What about the better equipped Macs?

And yes... other OEM's do that too.


RE: Why?
By dark matter on 10/26/2009 9:53:27 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, aero will not work in a GMA 950. But that isn't due to a lack of drivers rather than incapable hardware.


RE: Why?
By othercents on 10/27/2009 1:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 7 works on Intel GMA950 Netbooks which is one of the target markets that Microsoft wanted it get especially since they have been trying to discontinue Windows XP. Granted Aero won't work, but Aero is definitely not the #1 reasons to buy Windows 7 either.

Windows 7 shouldn't be a problem on the older macbooks. Someone will figure out how to get them to run with or without Apple.

Other


RE: Why?
By djcameron on 10/23/2009 9:39:10 AM , Rating: 5
On those oh-so-obsolete 3 year old computers? Gimme a break. We all know that Apple is all about planned obsolescence. You can't be cool if you don't have the latest Mac!


RE: Why?
By Omega215D on 10/23/2009 10:46:38 AM , Rating: 3
Then people turn around and start complaining that the new Windows OS doesn't have drivers for their 3 year old printer or 8 yr old software. Then when the OS does support their stuff people complain that the installation is bloated. WTF?

Sorry, just tired of having stuff advancing so slowly because of idiots...


RE: Why?
By Alexstarfire on 10/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why?
By PrinceGaz on 10/23/2009 2:46:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
When was the last 32-bit CPU even sold? Had to be at least before Vista.

The last 32-bit x86 CPU was probably sold just a few minutes ago, because VIA are still shipping C7 processors and they do not support x86-64.


RE: Why?
By overzealot on 10/23/2009 9:07:50 PM , Rating: 3
I believe that Intel still ships n and z series atoms, which also lack x64 support


RE: Why?
By dark matter on 10/26/2009 9:56:17 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly what can a printer do today that your 3 year old printer couldn't do?

I can understand if you were jumping from dot matrix to ink jet. However for the average owner a 3 year old printer is fine. In fact a 5 year old printer is fine.

Sorry, just tired of having to buy a new ******* printer because some crappy company stopped making the cartridges all because some idiot on the internet thought I was slowing him down somehow.


RE: Why?
By SiliconAddict on 10/23/2009 10:48:34 PM , Rating: 1
Yah because a chipset driver and video driver are so damn difficult to come by. we'll also ignore the fact that if they support Vista is virtually identical driver wise to support Win7. Please bitch don't insult people's intelligence by making excuses for Apple. A Mac is a damn PC wrapped in snobbery, running EFI. That is all.


RE: Why?
By seamonkey79 on 10/23/2009 8:19:32 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that if they did allow older Macs to work with newer Windows, then those older Mac owners might not buy a newer Mac, and that would be sad.


RE: Why?
By reader1 on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By 3minence on 10/23/2009 9:01:44 AM , Rating: 2
One of the reasons people were so pissed at Vista is it did drop support for old programs, some that people were still using.

Any OS needs to support older apps for a certain distance back. No business is going to buy all new software and hardware because of a new OS. The poor reception of Vista is ample proof of that.


RE: Why?
By Targon on 10/23/2009 12:22:17 PM , Rating: 3
That isn't entirely accurate, though there were issues. The problem is that Microsoft changed a number of things in how networking and sound were handled in the move to Vista. These changes would NOT be an issue for applications that did things the "proper" way, but did break a number of applications due to a number of rules now being enforced(which were not under XP). The end result was that networking and sound MAY have been broken for some older programs, and that resulted in some major headaches, especially in the corporate world.

The solution that Microsoft implemented with Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate is to allow applications to run in a Windows XP virtual machine, which in theory SHOULD solve that problem for those business customers. Of course, if a business insists on running the same software for 20 years, then there is really nothing that can be done. The days of 16 bit applications is over, and the days when DOS applications are acceptable in a business environment SHOULD be over as well.

If the company that wrote the software is no longer in business, then it makes sense to upgrade. The days of DBase 3 are long gone, so if you still run ancient software based on it, then it is time to upgrade. I know the economy is in the toilet, but honestly, 15 year-old software is a bit too old to be trustworthy, and you do NOT want to be in the situation where you can't get support for your business software because no one supports it anymore.


RE: Why?
By jonmcc33 on 10/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why?
By segerstein on 10/24/2009 4:49:02 PM , Rating: 1
If you need to run 16-bit apps, then you can still opt for 32-bit Windows 7.

Anyway, you can run your 16-bit apps in XP VM mode also on a 64-bit OS. If you need DOS, you don't need to look further than free DOSBox.

The one thing I don't get, is that OS X 10.6 is not available in 64-bit mode. In 2009!!!


RE: Why?
By sebmel on 10/24/2009 10:19:44 PM , Rating: 3
Unlike the either or 32 64-bit situation for Windows

Apple has been steadily building 64-bit functioning into the Mac OS. 10.4 had some, 10.5 had more and 10.6 is pretty much complete, depending on your hardware compatibility.

Mac OS X 10.6 runs old IBM PPC code through Rosetta, 32-bit and 64-bit apps. A 64-bit app like Safari can be forced to run as 32-bit if you have old 32-bit plugins installed.

Somewhat more versatile that the current state of Windows.


RE: Why?
By segerstein on 10/25/2009 1:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
I just don't get it, why Apple even made x86 (32-bit) OS and not just jump to x64.

And I wasn't talking about 64-bit PPC before.


RE: Why?
By sebmel on 10/26/2009 9:13:51 AM , Rating: 1
I should have been clearer:

OS X runs PPC code through Rosetta. It also runs 32-bit and 64-bit X86 code, and that includes recompiled Linux apps.

The reason Apple didn't simply offer 64-bit only is to offer backwards compatibility... something many readers of DT often accuse them of not doing sufficiently well. My view is that in this case Apple is offering more compatibility than Windows 7 on new machines and less on old.

Windows is offering and either/or, 32/64-bit, solution on new machines but it is supporting old ones, provided the graphics are up to is. You have to choose between the new 64-bit goodness or your old software.

Apple is not offering pre-Intel (late 2005) computers compatibility with 10.6... but it is offering compatibility for all the software you might have been running back then.


RE: Why?
By dark matter on 10/26/2009 10:03:13 AM , Rating: 3
Apologies, I misread your post, I though you said you were going to be clearer.

Are you really suggesting 32 bit software will not run on a 64 bit version of Windows? Or do you really mean 32 bit software will run without any problems and you were actually talking about 16-bit software that will not run on a 64 bit operating system without some kind of virtualisation.

Do you work in politics by any chance, just that you are rather deft at manipulating the facts.


RE: Why?
By sebmel on 10/26/2009 10:17:25 AM , Rating: 2
Then there is the issue of the limited funtionality of the versions of Windows versus the Mac OS that gives you everything.

Want limited XP compatibility? - (no games don't work) - You need Professional
Want Remote Desktop? - Pro again
Want VM? - You need Pro
Want BitLocker? - You need Ultimate
Virtual HD? - You need Ultimate


RE: Why?
By damianrobertjones on 10/26/2009 8:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
Or just but the one version that give you everything

Ultimate. So what if there's various versions when you know that one has everything. Pick, pick, pick etc. At least Ultimate still works on a dam pc, unlik OSX Snow Lep. G4 anyone? Ohhhhhh, quick, bend mac owners over


RE: Why?
By hemmy on 10/29/2009 2:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
Right.....because there aren't free alternatives to all of these things. (other than XP Mode, since it gives you a license, but if you already own XP then pick your flavor)


RE: Why?
By omnicronx on 10/23/2009 1:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft maintaining compatibility with old hardware and software only harms consumers.
No it harms home users, not the rest of the market (which is substantially larger), and even that is debatable. Compatibility is important to MS because of the business aspect, not so that you can run old dos games.


RE: Why?
By Pirks on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By gstrickler on 10/23/2009 12:03:58 PM , Rating: 3
The machines on which Apple doesn't support Win7 w/BootCamp are all 32-bit Core (not Core 2) machines, max 2GB RAM, and have either the Intel GMA 950 or ATI X1600 GPU. While the hardware might meet the minimums necessary to run Win7, it would suck. As far as I can tell, ATI doesn't even offer Win7 drivers for the X1600, although some beta users have gotten it to work. The GMA 950 is officially supported, but it's performance sucks.

So, the bottom line is that Apple doesn't support Win7 on those machines because it would suck on those machines.


RE: Why?
By Alexstarfire on 10/23/2009 1:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
I find it odd that Apple is trying to dictate what Microsoft's OS can run on now. I wonder who in breaking some laws now. Yea, let's make <insert other company's product here> just not run on these Apple machines just because we can. Sounds a lot like the whole IE debacle again, except Apple doesn't have a monopoly.


RE: Why?
By gstrickler on 10/23/2009 1:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
They're doing no such thing. They're simply stating these are the machine upon Apple will support running Win 7 under Boot Camp. Apple doesn't sell Windows machines, but they do support running Windows on some of their computers. People have run the Win 7 beta on some of the "non-supported" machines, so it's not that they won't work, it's just that Apple won't officially support it.

Dell, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, etc. all choose on which older machines they will support a new OS. This is no different. In each case, you may be able to run the new OS on "non-supported" machines, but you're on your own doing so.

For instance, as of right now, Dell lists the supported operating systems for the Optiplex 520 (less than 3 years old) as Windows XP and 2k, not even Vista is listed as supported (although it was available with Vista, so clearly Vista is/was supported). My Precision 390 (also under 3 years old) is includes 2k, XP, XP-x64, Vista x32/x64, and RedHat 4&5, but no Win 7. I know it works with Win 7, but it's not officially supported, at least not yet. Some of the newer machines do list Win 7, so it's not just an old list.

http://support.dell.com/support/topics/global.aspx...


RE: Why?
By Alexstarfire on 10/23/2009 2:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
I really have no idea what I was thinking when I posted that because you are quite right. I think Reader1 was getting to me.


RE: Why?
By gstrickler on 10/23/2009 2:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
I understand. I'm a Mac (and Windows) user, and I mostly ignore Reader1 and Pirks. Sometimes they post facts and/or legitimate complaints, but it's combined with so much bias or inaccurate info that it's mostly not worth reading.

I am a Mac fan. That doesn't mean I'm an Apple fan, and I'm definitely not an Apple or Mac apologist. Great OS, mostly great machines, not always great policies. Apple has always treated me fairly and my Apple products have been reliable. Sure, there have been failures, but not excessive ones, and the few that were design flaws were covered under a warranty extension program. Not everyone has had the same experience. As with any large company, there is always someone who believes they've been mistreated. Some have legitimate complaints, but most are just being unrealistic.


RE: Why?
By gstrickler on 10/23/2009 2:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yea, let's make <insert other company's product here> just not run on these Apple machines just because we can.
Apple doesn't sell Windows or Windows machines, therefore, it's not Apple's responsibility to make Windows run on their machines. That they choose to produce Boot Camp as one way a user can run some versions of Windows on some Macs is a marketing decision, nothing more. Without Boot Camp, no version of Windows will run directly on a Mac (although you can run it in a VM using VMware Fusion or Parallels Desktop).

They've done nothing to prevent running Windows on their machines, they simply don't officially support certain versions on certain machines. More accurately, by writing Boot Camp, they ADDED support for specific versions of Windows on machines meeting specific HW and EFI requirements.

In reality, Win 7 will run on the non-supported machines using Boot Camp v3.1, people have been using the Win 7 beta on those machines for quite some time. Apple doesn't support it, but it does work.


RE: Why?
By bnutz on 10/23/2009 1:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
There are Core 2 systems that max at 2GB and use the GMA 950, so it not that is 32bit vs 64bit, its because they want you to buy a new machine if you want win 7. I have a Toshiba with those specs running 7 perfect and even my P4 Dell notebook with a Radeon 9000, and 1GB works well. I don't get the Aero features on my Dell, but that is the least important feature to me.


RE: Why?
By sebmel on 10/24/2009 10:26:53 PM , Rating: 2
So really twisted logic here! Apple isn't supporting Microsoft's OS?

Doesn't it occur to you that that just might be Microsoft's job? Why isn't Microsoft writing the drivers? It seems to me that surely it's Microsoft that ought to promote the sale of Windows... or have the people complaining here become so insecure about the quality of Microsoft's work that they want Apple to do it for them?


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki