Windows XP on Apple

BAR wrote:
OK all you nit picking twits. Given the nature of the question one need not

Oh lighten up, we are only pulling your leg.

be so specific in a response. Given that the man has an Apple and wants to
install Windows - in general - not possible in the manner suggested by The
Undertaker.



To be complete with the answer, Microsoft Windows XP as published for Intel
[and Intel Compatible products, although one generally does not specifically
state AMD as anyone with one day's experience in computers knows of this]

No, which is a problem, thhis really needs to be addresed, because I get
fed up of seeing Intel all over the place, so many pro_intel companies.
Take Dell for instance, they stick with a over priced chip.

will not install or operate in the Apple Computer.

Nope.

However, it is possible to Emulate Windows on a Mac with OSX: 'Virtual PC 7'
works by emulating a Pentium-based Windows machine on your Mac. When you
launch Virtual PC, the Windows OS appears inside a window on your Mac
desktop.

You can switch back and forth between your Mac OS and Windows as easily as
you go between any two windows on your Mac desktop. Using Virtual PC, you can
copy and paste text and graphics between Mac and Windows, and drag files and
folders from one OS to the other.


But I bet it will be slow, very slow.
I got an emulator for the CBM 64 on my 2500 AMdxp it runs great, but on
my old 1Ghz system, it ran like a snail,
so an Apple running Xp will be like like running XP on a 233 I should
think :

Ad "if they are around now and if they could run XP, I do not know."

If you care to read the previous post I included ther URL for Apple's site.
They make this emulator and it is available now!

Maybe I should have put this in Braille.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/applications/virtualpc/



"Ad" wrote:

The Undertaker wrote:
Dear All,
I would like to know if there is a possibility to partition a Mac laptop and
install WIndows XP on one of the local disks.
Thanks.
Patrick


I doubt it, since apple uses a different system.
Why on earth would you want to put a poor Mac thought the digrace of
having windows XP on for?

I know a few years badk there was emulators so you could run windows
over the top of a MAc Os, but if they are around now and if they could
run XP, I do not know.
Most Mac users try and keep away from Microsoft products.

"Ad" wrote

Most Mac users try and keep away from Microsoft products.

And the rest of us are very happy that they do, thank you.

--
Bob

Kanyak's Doghouse
http://www.kanyak.com

"Tom" wrote in message
...

"Leythos" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:55:45 -0500, Tom wrote:


"BAR" wrote in message
...
The Windows operating system has been designed [written for] to be run
on
Intel processors only.

HUH?

Where do you get this info? My friend has an AMD processor running
great
on
his XP box.

That's because AMD emulates Intel. Sure, there are some OS's that make
explicit use of AMD specific instructions, but AMD was designed, in
general, to emulate Intel for application and OS compatibility.

Not quite the same as running a Motorola CPU with XP


BAR specifically said "Intel processors only". That isn't true!



He should say x386 family processors (and up), not Motorolla base CPU

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
And AMD CPUs , for my money are just as substantial and more reasonably
priced than anything Intel........

And how this relates to the topic?






"Leythos" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:55:45 -0500, Tom wrote:


"BAR" wrote in message
...
The Windows operating system has been designed [written for] to be
run
on
Intel processors only.

HUH?

Where do you get this info? My friend has an AMD processor running
great
on
his XP box.

That's because AMD emulates Intel. Sure, there are some OS's that make
explicit use of AMD specific instructions, but AMD was designed, in
general, to emulate Intel for application and OS compatibility.

Not quite the same as running a Motorola CPU with XP


--

remove 999 in order to email me

"Ad" wrote in message
...
Leythos wrote:



That's because AMD emulates Intel. Sure, there are some OS's that make
explicit use of AMD specific instructions, but AMD was designed, in

Windows XP uses some features of the AMD chip.

general, to emulate Intel for application and OS compatibility.


Bloody Intel. :-)

Not quite the same as running a Motorola CPU with XP


No, I do not think my Amiga would run Xp, mind you, I would not mind
giving it a try :-)


I think AmigaOS is/was better than any windows ever released.
Of course we have to remember that AmigaOS last version was around when we
still had Win3.1 with 16 colors

"Ad" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
OK all you nit picking twits. Given the nature of the question one need
not

Oh lighten up, we are only pulling your leg.

be so specific in a response. Given that the man has an Apple and wants
to
install Windows - in general - not possible in the manner suggested by
The
Undertaker.



To be complete with the answer, Microsoft Windows XP as published for
Intel
[and Intel Compatible products, although one generally does not
specifically
state AMD as anyone with one day's experience in computers knows of
this]

No, which is a problem, thhis really needs to be addresed, because I get
fed up of seeing Intel all over the place, so many pro_intel companies.
Take Dell for instance, they stick with a over priced chip.

Stick with the best


will not install or operate in the Apple Computer.

Nope.

However, it is possible to Emulate Windows on a Mac with OSX: 'Virtual
PC 7'
works by emulating a Pentium-based Windows machine on your Mac. When you
launch Virtual PC, the Windows OS appears inside a window on your Mac
desktop.

You can switch back and forth between your Mac OS and Windows as easily
as
you go between any two windows on your Mac desktop. Using Virtual PC,
you can
copy and paste text and graphics between Mac and Windows, and drag files
and
folders from one OS to the other.


But I bet it will be slow, very slow.
I got an emulator for the CBM 64 on my 2500 AMdxp it runs great, but on
my old 1Ghz system, it ran like a snail,
so an Apple running Xp will be like like running XP on a 233 I should
think :

"Leythos" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:27:16 -0500, zibby wrote:


"Ad" wrote in message
...
Leythos wrote:



That's because AMD emulates Intel. Sure, there are some OS's that
make
explicit use of AMD specific instructions, but AMD was designed, in

Windows XP uses some features of the AMD chip.

general, to emulate Intel for application and OS compatibility.


Bloody Intel. :-)

Not quite the same as running a Motorola CPU with XP


No, I do not think my Amiga would run Xp, mind you, I would not mind
giving it a try :-)


I think AmigaOS is/was better than any windows ever released.
Of course we have to remember that AmigaOS last version was around when
we
still had Win3.1 with 16 colors

I completely disagree. The Amiga was a certain class of machine, it was
designed for a purpose and it does very well at it. The Windows machines
were also designed for a purpose and they also do very well at their
purpose.

I never bought an Amiga, but I owned every version of Commodore computer
from the PET 2001 onward until Commodore close it's doors. We use to have
the largest Commodore user group / BBS in the country (USA) at one point.

--

remove 999 in order to email me

Well, you need to get some facts straight.
Back in '85-87 Amiga could do same or more than PC.
It was perfect for home or office computer. Excellent graphics, 4 channel
sound, GUI "only" OS (no DOS, but it had CLI window command,
kinda like CMD for win NT based OS)
Best of all I didn't need 800Mb of crap for OS. I could boot up Amiga from
one floppy disk (and work in "windows" environment)
and if Commodore published hardware for Amiga like IBM did, you would be
using it now and never heard of f... PC with their
issues from day one that are carried on to make them backward compatible.

Yes, in a roundabout way. Go purchase Microsoft's Virtual PC for the Mac,
which includes a full version of XP on a regular CD (depending on the
version you buy.) It's even reasonably priced.

http://www.microsoft.com/mac/product...x?pid=whichver


"The Undertaker" wrote in message
...
Dear All,
I would like to know if there is a possibility to partition a Mac laptop
and
install WIndows XP on one of the local disks.
Thanks.
Patrick

"Leythos" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:41:21 -0500, zibby wrote:


"Leythos" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:27:16 -0500, zibby wrote:


"Ad" wrote in message
...
Leythos wrote:



That's because AMD emulates Intel. Sure, there are some OS's that
make
explicit use of AMD specific instructions, but AMD was designed,
in

Windows XP uses some features of the AMD chip.

general, to emulate Intel for application and OS compatibility.


Bloody Intel. :-)

Not quite the same as running a Motorola CPU with XP


No, I do not think my Amiga would run Xp, mind you, I would not mind
giving it a try :-)


I think AmigaOS is/was better than any windows ever released.
Of course we have to remember that AmigaOS last version was around
when
we
still had Win3.1 with 16 colors

I completely disagree. The Amiga was a certain class of machine, it was
designed for a purpose and it does very well at it. The Windows
machines
were also designed for a purpose and they also do very well at their
purpose.

I never bought an Amiga, but I owned every version of Commodore
computer
from the PET 2001 onward until Commodore close it's doors. We use to
have
the largest Commodore user group / BBS in the country (USA) at one
point.

--

remove 999 in order to email me

Well, you need to get some facts straight.
Back in '85-87 Amiga could do same or more than PC.
It was perfect for home or office computer. Excellent graphics, 4
channel
sound, GUI "only" OS (no DOS, but it had CLI window command,
kinda like CMD for win NT based OS)
Best of all I didn't need 800Mb of crap for OS. I could boot up Amiga
from
one floppy disk (and work in "windows" environment)
and if Commodore published hardware for Amiga like IBM did, you would be
using it now and never heard of f... PC with their
issues from day one that are carried on to make them backward
compatible.

The post that I replied to said:

I think AmigaOS is/was better than any windows ever released

My comments address that posting.

As for what was available BACK IN THOSE DAYS, yes, the Amiga was one heck
of a machine, and was for many years after it came out.

And some corrections - Windows didn't need 800Meg of anything to boot up
in the early days, in fact, it would install on under 100MB.


Well it's still more than floppy disk size



I think you misunderstand my post - I sold more Commodore computers in
those days than any other computer on the market that we had access to.
I found the B128 to be the best of many worlds of Commodore, but you don't
know many people that owned or used a B128, heck, most people don't even
know about the C128. At the same time there was an ATT 3B1 computer that
ran circles around the Amiga for imaging, but you also don't hear much
about it.

but it was 8 bit computer, where Amiga opened 16 bit computer era (along wth
PC and Apple)


Each machine / OS has it's strength, sometimes they overlap a little,
sometimes a lot, but no one machine is good for everything.

--

remove 999 in order to email me


Anyway, we got sh..ty PCs now, Mac with Linux OS (linux ported to Mac
hardware), Sun with Unix

Opinicus wrote:
"Ad" wrote

Most Mac users try and keep away from Microsoft products.


And the rest of us are very happy that they do, thank you.


They got sense,
why on earth do they want a bulked up Microsoft application slowing down
their machine?

zibby wrote:


No, which is a problem, thhis really needs to be addresed, because I get
fed up of seeing Intel all over the place, so many pro_intel companies.
Take Dell for instance, they stick with a over priced chip.


Stick with the best


In your dreams, AMD is much better value than an Intel.

zibby wrote:


I think AmigaOS is/was better than any windows ever released.
Of course we have to remember that AmigaOS last version was around when we
still had Win3.1 with 16 colors

Oh yes and the P.C was going beep beep.
I remember a mate of mine got himself a nice new P.C and I went over to
see it, and laughed, he came over my place to look at my Amiga and was
gob smacked. the Amiga really was a better copmputer and I think if
commodore was still around, then there would have been a true
alternative to the P.C

Leythos wrote:

I completely disagree. The Amiga was a certain class of machine, it was
designed for a purpose and it does very well at it. The Windows machines
were also designed for a purpose and they also do very well at their
purpose.

The Amiga was a far better machine than the P.C at the time, now the
P.cC wins hands down in most things.


I never bought an Amiga, but I owned every version of Commodore computer
from the PET 2001 onward until Commodore close it's doors. We use to have
the largest Commodore user group / BBS in the country (USA) at one point.


If you never owned an Amiga, you do not know what you have missed.
It was a fantastic machine.

zibby wrote:



Well, you need to get some facts straight.
Back in '85-87 Amiga could do same or more than PC.
It was perfect for home or office computer. Excellent graphics, 4 channel
sound, GUI "only" OS (no DOS, but it had CLI window command,
kinda like CMD for win NT based OS)
Best of all I didn't need 800Mb of crap for OS. I could boot up Amiga from
one floppy disk (and work in "windows" environment)
and if Commodore published hardware for Amiga like IBM did, you would be
using it now and never heard of f... PC with their
issues from day one that are carried on to make them backward compatible.



True, true, I t would have been so nice to have Amigas in the Office and
not P.C,s;