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

RE: Why?
By reader1 on 10/23/2009 8:51:24 AM , Rating: -1
Forcing people to buy new hardware is a good thing. It allows technology to advance. You can't advance technology if you keep supporting old software and hardware.

Microsoft maintaining compatibility with old hardware and software only harms consumers. If Microsoft stopped supporting old software, new, improved software would be written. Instead, Windows is plagued with programs that are using ancient, bloated code. Microsoft's OS encourages laziness and that's why software on Windows is so bad.


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
"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














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