News from The Steve's address at MacWorld

Except the Mac OS can mount a .DMG file directly, as a disk.

Mac Software companies tend to distribute software as .DMGs.

 

No, that's a good question. Trick is, you're -- at this moment -- in a "gap" situation -- Intel Macs, but not all of software has caught up to the new processors. So for some questions, there are not yet answers.

Here is what I know, and what I think I know (I will differentiate):

• I know: Virtual PC would still be needed (unless... see farther down in the list). Thing to understand is, Virtual PC runs an entire Windows system on the Mac in a single window. So you've got this one Mac Window that has Windows XP running inside it.
  
  I point that out in regards to your Windows apps, in VirtualPC, running with any Mac apps you have -- or sharing documents between themselves. It's not the same as if you had Windows apps running side-by-side your Mac Apps, each app (Windows or Mac) having their own Window.
  
  Take a look at the VirtualPC demos over at Microsoft -- see if this model is going to work for you, since it sounds as if you'll be running the 2 Windows apps constantly.
  
• I think: The bad news is, I don't think the current Virtual PC will work on the new Intel Macs; VirtualPC emulates an Intel processor in software and, well, it doesn't need to do that anymore on Intel Macs.
  
• I know: The really good news is, if and when VirtualPC comes out for Intel-based Macs, it's going to run really fast. Like, as fast as a PC.
  
  In the past, I was leery of suggesting you switch to the Mac, if you were going to be running two Windows apps constantly. VirtualPC runs slow on PowerPC Macs, because it's emulating the Intel processor in software -- and I thought that might make your two Windows apps too slow for constant use.
  
  (I still think you should play with a Mac for a while -- the UI, while better than Windows (IMO), is not a no-brainer to move to.)
• I think:Several people have mentioned the possibility of Wine being moved to the Mac. That would be an alternative to VirtualPC -- one where each Windows app app (I think) would run side-by-side the Mac apps.
  
  However, no idea how close they are to getting Wine to work for a Mac, let alone an Intel-based one; and no idea how solid it would be, reliable, fast, etc.

Hope that helps! I'm very glad I switched from Windows to the Mac, but (a) I'm an old Unix hack, and so the guts of the Mac are familiar to me, and (B) there was work (and a few sharp pains) involved.

 

Two corrections:

1. The new MacBook Pro isn't available until February (but they're taking orders now).
2. They're still selling the PowerPC-based PowerBooks -- the MacBook Pro isn't replacing it. (Yet.)

 

I hear you there. (Though they are pricey. But fast!)

A friend and I discussed over lunch why Apple wasn't talking battery life of the MacBook Pro. We decided that since the new "power-miser" Intel chips wouldn't be out until mid-'06, they decided to make the MacBook Pro the "fast" Intel notebook. (These are dual core Intel chips, after all.)

The power demand for the MacBook isn't any worse than the PowerMac -- but I don't think it's substantially better. But people's expectations, at this stage of the game, aren't high -- they'll be "blinded" by the speed, and won't be critical of no amazing leaps in power management.

When the new "power miser" chips come out, they'll come out with a corresponding Intel iBook or PowerMac -- but the emphasis will be on "look at the amazing battery life!" Speed may be more along the lines of 2 times the PowerMacs, instead of 4. It's all a tradeoff.

Question: did the prices on the PowerBooks drop today? I.e., was the low-end model selling for ~$1500 yesterday? Your early adopter fee for the MacBook Pro is about $500.

 

I would have bet good money that the Mini was going to be the first Mactel -- definitely not the iMac. Shows you how good I am at predicting!

I'd bet that Internet access won't seem faster -- I'm finding that the with the speed of modern computers, the bottleneck is my home DSL connection -- not the processor.

Re: speed, the big question will be: how does running current Mac application software under Rosetta balance with the faster Intel chip?

What I'd be really interested in seeing a speed comparison of: Microsoft Office (Excel or Word), as it is now, running under Rosetta on an Intel iMac, vs. a Dual G5 PowerMac.

 

It's all a matter of degrees, I guess. The beauty of moving for an old computer: everything seems blazing fast!

 

Two addendums:

1. Microsoft has announced that Virtual PC will not run on the Intel-based Macs. They are working towards it, but say it will be a major effort.
   
   I think this means, "Don't hold your breath".
2. In the spate of discussions about whether the Intel version of Mac OS X could be run on PCs, someone brought up something I hadn't thought about: can you install Windows on an Intel Mac, and dual-boot it?
   
   That wouldn't solve the situation Hiyo has -- I don't suppose you want to have to reboot the Mac out of OS X and into Windows to run those 2 programs. However, it might solve problems for folks like me, who occasionally need to run Windows programs that interface with 3rd party hardware.
   
   We'll see.

 

BTW, I know you're on Keynote overload, but I highly recommend reading the Ars Technica summary of the Keynote. Trust me, this is worth it.

These guys do the best combination of spot-on technical detail and hilarious snark I've ever seen.