Apple's OS Edge Is a Threat to Microsoft

BusinessWeek ^ | 04/11/2008 | by Gary Morgenthaler

[tacticalogic]

That’s true, but I don’t think it’s safe to assume that running the MAC OS under the MS hypervisor is going to be the same as running Windows under the MAC virtualization within a Windows corporated infrastructure.

[Spktyr]

That’s not at all what I had in mind.

In order to do this, Microsoft would have to toss the Hypervisor.

They already have the tech. They got it when they bought Connectix.

But, again, I’m not giving Microsoft any ideas for free. I know we have ‘softies reading this forum.

[Sunnyflorida]

Exactly, they could acquire Parallels which lets XP app run in a window. not to hard technically to offer this on a RHT/Aero platform.

[Spktyr]

Ooops, sorry, wrong thread on my last reply, thought it was the other active Windows thread this morning.

There is no legal way to get Mac OS X running in a VM on Windows. And I don’t think it would work very well, even hacked. You have to use it as a dual-boot system.

I have run Windows on a Mac in a Windows corporate infrastructure/network. The domain controllers, network shares, and everything else didn’t have a problem and couldn’t tell I was on a Mac other than the MAC address - which didn’t matter.

BTW, it’s “Mac” for the computer and “MAC” for media access controller - i.e., network card.

[Spktyr]

They already *have* that tech. See “VirtualPC” which they got when they bought Connectix.

[tacticalogic]

The Windows VM will join a sec domain or SMS flawlessly. Remember, for all Windows knows, it IS a PC. Right down to the hardware beyond the HAL of the VM.

Sorry, I think I misunderstood this point in your last reply.

Yes, the Windows VM will join the domain. But you still have the MAC OS running next to it, that the user can switch to. Now you have to address anything you've done with regards to network security (IPSEC, intrusion detection, AV,etc.) all over again.

[Spktyr]

Not necessarily. There are multiplatform packages, some open-source, that address this. So all your machines, Mac, Windows, Linux can all run the same AV, antiintrusion and VPN protocols.

Not so huge an issue any more. Well, unless you want to go with bloatware from, say, McAfee or Symantec.

[aruanan]

And iPhone owners who are Windows users may also think, “Hmmm, this iPhone uses OSX and I really love my iPhone. I wonder how OSX is in a desktop computer like one of those iMacs.”

[tacticalogic]

Being able to use the protocol is one then. Configuration management and enforcement is something else altogether. Ever try to apply Windows domain group policy to a Mac? What kind of tools are there for the centralized management of that kind of hetrogenous OS environment that will scale to several thousand workstations?

[discostu]

I’ve been in the industry for a long time, professionally since Win95 was in Beta, hobby and school for plenty of time before then. One of the constants of the industry is there’s always something out there which people are predicting is going to eat Microsoft’s lunch, frequently that something is Apple. And yet MS keeps having their lunch. The last web traffic stats I saw showed Vista having a larger install base than Mac, while everybody keeps talking about how poorly Vista is doing in the market and how great Mac is doing Vista is apparently actually selling pretty well.

Now I’m not saying that MS’s lunch will never be eaten by somebody else, all giants can be toppled. I’m just saying it’s going to take a lot more than what are basically the same stories I’ve been reading for 20 years for me to believe that their lunch is going to be eaten SOON. If you’re an old fart like me you’ve read probably thousands of “Mac is so much better than Windows, MS is doomed” stories, almost as many as you read about how solar power is about to really take off.

[TXnMA]

The article doesn't even scratch the surface of OS X/Mac superiority.

Now that Apple finally came out with the (iPphone-like) LED backlighting on its 1920 X 1200 pixel 17" display, I'm writing this on my new 17", 2.5GHz, 4GB Macbook Pro -- over my home wireless network -- while Time Machine backs up my MBP wirelessly to my 1TB Time Capsule. On the left side of my display is the Mac Desktop (with the dock hiding along the left side) and on the right is Windows XP. (Vista? NO WAY!!!)

Unfortunately, the super screen resolution is so high that FR text is tiny and difficult for these old eyes to read. Fortunately, since Apple (who controls the hardware and software) has thoughtfully added the "iPhone touch" to my laptop, all I have to do is put two fingers on my touchpad, spread them apart, and ZOOM -- nice big, readable text! (BTW, it is also nice to have the screen real estate to have the FR forum on the left and the FR "slave screen" [zoomed] on the right.)

I also have a Dell Laptop here running XP and ArcGIS. What a kludge! That won't last long, because ArcGIS will soon be running on the MacBook Pro, and the Dell will go to the grandkids as a toy for playing games...

[aruanan]

I am recalling all of this from memories that are over 25 years old now, so I could be off in some respects, but the overall idea is valid. Apple made it very difficult to be a developer, IBM practically begged you to develop and share.

You're half right. It wasn't the developer aspect that gave Microsoft OS machines the edge because most consumers aren't developers. It was simply that the price was hundreds of dollars less. Most first time computer consumers then thought "A computer is a computer is a computer" and thought that with the hundreds of dollars in savings they could buy all sorts of software, too. They entered upon the wide path and never knew anything different until relatively recently.

[TheBattman]

Remember - just a little over a decade back, Apple DID turn lose of the hardware part - licensing the OS to 3rd party makers.

The lesson learned by Apple - it nearly killed them.

Now, with OSX, that game might not be so deadly for them, I still believe that experience is still in Steve Job’s mind.

[Spktyr]

Windows domain group policy doesn’t always work on *Windows* machines, for that matter. It certainly doesn’t work on Linux boxes.

And there *are* tools for centralized management of Mac OS X machines that do scale. However, they aren’t able to manage Windows machines any better than AD can manage a Mac. Likewise with Linux.

All it means is that your IT personnel have to actually earn those salaries. :D

[TheBattman]

Actually you “can”... there are hacks out there to make it possible. Of course, being installed on unsupported hardware can make for a less-than positive experience, it can be done.

[Spktyr]

Um, until OS X, the main story was “Apple is doomed, MS will crush them” in the press.

So... now that even the notoriously clueless press is forced to admit that this isn’t even remotely the truth.

Also, many of those web traffic stats rely on browser plugins that DO NOT INFECT a Mac or a properly locked down PC and are therefore suspicious.

[Spktyr]

In Steve’s mind... in the board’s mind... in the shareholders’ minds... in the users’ minds...

Basically, it’s never going to get repeated for as long as Steve or any of the long-term boardmembers and shareholders have anything to say about it.

[savedbygrace]

As Spktyr and TheBattman have already said, you can do that but it’s a serious hack.

BTW, the nickname for such a computer is: HackIntosh

FWIW. YMMV.

[tacticalogic]

It also means that it’ll take more staff and infrastructure on the back end to support it. Now the question is, how much is that going to cost, and what are you really getting out of it?

[TheBattman]

Proof, please.

TCO has *always* been lower for Mac OS machines since the late 90s. It’s a nasty little secret that we consultants *won’t* generally tell you about - so as to ensure that we remain employed.

I think the point he was trying to make was the cost of having 2 OSes installed - MacOS and Windows. While it would definitely not double the cost, it would represent a significant cost increase.