But Why?

[johnmazz84]

My questions is this. I remember the commercials for the Mac w/ intel, they said "What's an Intel doing in a Mac? More then it ever did for windows" or something like that. If you put Windows XP on a mac, does it still get the performance boost that was promised by apple?

By putting xp on a mac, do you just get a pretty, yet more expensive windows machine with no more preformance boost then you would with a regular windows machine with the same specs?

I think the comercials were saying the macTels were four times faster, are they still faster with XP on it?

Thanks.

[Boozy]

I think you might have missed the point.

The speed gain publicised by Apple is in relation to their previous computers.
So if you had a PowerPC based Power Book or iMac you will notice a speed increase on the new Intel chips on some software that has universal binnaries.

Running XP on these new macs will not be much different from running XP on any other PC.

The reason why anyone would put XP on an intel Mac ... well why not.
I personally would like to have XP available on my MBP as well as the awsome Tiger. It comes down to personal preference and seeing what you can do.

[Sixfortyfive]

Why would you do this? To win $13000+. =)

Seriously though, it would remove the need for some people to own two computers in some instances, such as having a Mac notebook for personal use but being required to run Windows apps in a native invironment for business/school purposes or something along those lines. It's not practical for everyone, but there are uses for it.

[namgorf]

Boozy is spot on, the performance is relative to the G4 processor.

The Intel Core architecture is closer to the older Pentium III and the Pentium M (Centrino). It can do more work (instructions per second) in each clock cycle.

Running XP on a Mac will provide the platform professionals need in order to do their work. Things like 3D Studio or Games.

Keep in mind that the only thing setting the macs apart at this point is design and branding. You can purchase a Dell with the exact same chipset, processor, and graphics card as the MPB.

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/entnb_e1705?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

Combine that with that fact that you could install OS X 4.5.5 on it.

But, dell systems are pretty ugly on average. IBM (Lenovo) has some Core Duo systems out now too. I only wish the MBP has 2 mouse buttons on the touchpad. Option clicking gets old.

[sshjason]

Agreed! :) However, the thing that is very annoying to me is when people say that you pay a 'premium' for an Apple. The MBP, at 2.0 GHz Core Duo, with the 256mg ATI card, 2GB of memory and a 100 GB7200 RPM hard drive costs $2,899. The Dell, with the exact same specs except a 256mg NVIDA card is $3,062. Of course Dell tricks you into thinking that the price is 'only' $999 when you go to their web site, but the version they are showing sucks! I would never spend $1,000 for a setup like that. On top of that, if you paid the premium for a Dell, it still looks like a Dell, and it certainly does not look like you paid over $3,000 for a computer.

Boozy is spot on, the performance is relative to the G4 processor.

The Intel Core architecture is closer to the older Pentium III and the Pentium M (Centrino). It can do more work (instructions per second) in each clock cycle.

Running XP on a Mac will provide the platform professionals need in order to do their work. Things like 3D Studio or Games.

Keep in mind that the only thing setting the macs apart at this point is design and branding. You can purchase a Dell with the exact same chipset, processor, and graphics card as the MPB.

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/entnb_e1705?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

Combine that with that fact that you could install OS X 4.5.5 on it.

But, dell systems are pretty ugly on average. IBM (Lenovo) has some Core Duo systems out now too. I only wish the MBP has 2 mouse buttons on the touchpad. Option clicking gets old.