Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Windows 7 Beta
- Thread starter conshok26
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That and the windows environment is no where near as radical. Most of the Mac faithful welcome the bundling and those who don't usually see the digital equivalent to a mob with pitch forks.
I can't connect Windows 7 to OS 10.5
I setup a dual boot on my PC laptop with Vista and Windows 7 beta. I can access the files on my iMac with no problem in Vista but I can't in Windows 7. I've setup 7 as I did in Vista and made sure SMB is turned on but I can only see the iMac in the network. It will not connect and gives me error 50. Any ideas?
HP dv6325 Laptop
20" iMac 2.4g OS 10.5.6
I setup a dual boot on my PC laptop with Vista and Windows 7 beta. I can access the files on my iMac with no problem in Vista but I can't in Windows 7. I've setup 7 as I did in Vista and made sure SMB is turned on but I can only see the iMac in the network. It will not connect and gives me error 50. Any ideas?
HP dv6325 Laptop
20" iMac 2.4g OS 10.5.6
"A lot of the problem was Microsoft used to give PC makers contracts which said: you can bundle Winodws and only Windows with your computers. `This is why their actions are closely scrutinised by courts."
wtf?!
1. why the hell would computer manufacturers agree to contracts like that. why would 95% of computer companies want to bundle anything other than windows in the first place
2. the reason they have had legal issues are very specifically to do with abusing a defined monopoly position found in article 82 EC, primarily for bundling their media player with windows
wtf?!
1. why the hell would computer manufacturers agree to contracts like that. why would 95% of computer companies want to bundle anything other than windows in the first place
2. the reason they have had legal issues are very specifically to do with abusing a defined monopoly position found in article 82 EC, primarily for bundling their media player with windows
Strange. I have found there to be no noticeable loss (or increase for that matter) in FPS from my Bootcamped XP to Windows 7.
Running Left4Dead, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Sacred 2, Dark Messiah, Dead Space & Crysis WarHead, Sims 2 + Expansions
All working great.
MacPro with a 8800 GT
Have you downloaded the graphics card updates in the windows 7 updater utility ?
Long Post: To summarise: Apple and Microsoft are different with different business models. They compete in some areas and not in others. Microsoft has never made and sold a PC to consumers in their history. Apple did license software for a very short period in their history, but do not currently.
Secondly, to answer your question why manufacturers used to agree to contracts like this, I think the answer is fairly obvious: to get a cheaper price on Windows®.
Take a step back:
Whilst Apple and Microsoft are often pitted against each other in an eternal battle to the end of time, they fundamentally do two separate things.
Microsoft lisence software to hardware manufacturers who compete in an open PC market.
Apple makes the Macintosh, a premium priced alternative to the commodity PC market. As I pointed out earier, this is not an open market.
Notice how Microsoft is free bundle as much as software as they like with their XBOX 360 platform. Why? Cause it's not an open market. It's Microsoft's baby, they can pretty much do what they like with it.
Here's an example:
Lenovo is putting together their latest laptop. This is a consumer laptop so they want a video editor to go with their machines.
Adobe come round with their new version of Premiere Elements. The demo is stunning and Lenovo team decides they'd love to have it on the machine. Negations begin over the licensing fee.
Meanwhile someone on the team figures that the next version of Windows will have a fairly decent Video Editor included and this won't cost a thing because it is all included in the fee for the OS.
Guess which decision is likely to made? In this case Adobe would likely get frozen out.
By bundling Windows Movie Maker with Windows Microsoft is making it harder for other software companies (with whom they compete) to approach OEMs to have a rival piece of software included.
By bundling iMovie with a Macintosh Apple is also making it harder for other software companies to compete in the entry level video editing field. However this is Apple's decision to make, cause it's their computer. Technically the above scenario it is Lenovo decision to make, but the deal would be heavily influenced by Microsoft's actions. Adobe aren't on an even footing.
Firstly, it's not WTF, Microsoft can't do it anymore, but it did happen.
Secondly, to answer your question why manufacturers used to agree to contracts like this, I think the answer is fairly obvious: to get a cheaper price on Windows®.
Maybe someone could have competed with Microsoft in the licensing game during the 80s/90s, but exclusive contracts would have made it very difficult. That was smart by Microsoft, very smart.
No. If you read my post, I make no mention market share.
Take a step back:
Whilst Apple and Microsoft are often pitted against each other in an eternal battle to the end of time, they fundamentally do two separate things.
Microsoft lisence software to hardware manufacturers who compete in an open PC market.
Apple makes the Macintosh, a premium priced alternative to the commodity PC market. As I pointed out earier, this is not an open market.
Notice how Microsoft is free bundle as much as software as they like with their XBOX 360 platform. Why? Cause it's not an open market. It's Microsoft's baby, they can pretty much do what they like with it.
Yes, but nobody has ever brought a computer from Microsoft. This is the crucial difference to understand.
Here's an example:
Lenovo is putting together their latest laptop. This is a consumer laptop so they want a video editor to go with their machines.
Adobe come round with their new version of Premiere Elements. The demo is stunning and Lenovo team decides they'd love to have it on the machine. Negations begin over the licensing fee.
Meanwhile someone on the team figures that the next version of Windows will have a fairly decent Video Editor included and this won't cost a thing because it is all included in the fee for the OS.
Guess which decision is likely to made? In this case Adobe would likely get frozen out.
By bundling Windows Movie Maker with Windows Microsoft is making it harder for other software companies (with whom they compete) to approach OEMs to have a rival piece of software included.
By bundling iMovie with a Macintosh Apple is also making it harder for other software companies to compete in the entry level video editing field. However this is Apple's decision to make, cause it's their computer. Technically the above scenario it is Lenovo decision to make, but the deal would be heavily influenced by Microsoft's actions. Adobe aren't on an even footing.
That's fine. Cause Apple make the hardware and the software. It's Apple's decision to make.
Once again, im not sure what MS is really doing wrong here. They are offering a free movie editing app if you buy their OS. Lenovo chooses that because its free. If adobe wanted to compete with MS they could write their own OS and bundle Premiere or they could offer Premiere to Lenovo for free through some agreement, which is exactly what MS is doing. Obviously, anyone who is serious about editin movies isnt going to use the MS product and Premiere would be overkill for most users so making them pay the license fee for that wouldnt make much sense.
Well, duh. 90% of the market isnt going to need half the crap Premiere has that WMM doesnt, so Lenovo would be asking the consumer to pay for something they dont need. A consumer that doesnt edit video would look at an equal-spec computer from Acer and go with it because it doesnt have the $XYZ license fee strapped on for an app they will never use.
It might just be that we have fundamental differences in our reason of how computers should work, but i fail to see how Apple, a company that ties its OS to its hardware, is any less guilty than a company that lets is OS go wherever the customer chooses.
Imo, the consumer should have the choice in what happens, and you seem to think that whoever makes the hardware gets to choose whatever they fell like.
You'll find it does the same on Parallels with the standard games and one or two other apps. I think the reason is that the games involve some 3D acceleration and bypassing that causes W7 some problems leading to lockup. I also installed W7 on a Dell Inspiron D600, which has a lowly ATI9000. No Vista driver, so only basic non-Aero functionality under W7 and a warning that lack of 3D may cause some apps not to run properly.
MS tells you that you need IE7 or above to download this using the Download Manager as it requires ActiveX. I fired up XP under Fusion and IE6 and downloaded the small "default.aspx" redirector file, opened it in Text Editor, found the direct download link and threw that into Speed Download. Got the ISO a couple of hours later.
By the way, there are only a handful of non-unique registration keys. I signed on twice using different addresses and details and got the same key. A quick google confirms that there are not that many different keys around, so if you happen to miss out by the 24/1 deadline, I dare say that someone could help you out at no personal risk.
I see what elppa is saying. Hes not saying whats right or wrong, as in ethically, hes speaking about legality.
Apple owns the rights to all of its hardware and software. Thus they can do whatever they want with it, on their machines and software. Nobody can say anything about it.
Microsoft owns all the rights to Windows, but not to the hardware. Hardware manufacturers cant make profit off companies like Adobe installing trial of premiere(as per the example) if theres already a free alternative that meets the needs of most consumers. The idea is to make more money. Adobe and Lenovo meet together, so they can both profit, they refuse to allow Microsoft to bundle its OS with software. Now Microsoft is allowed by all means to make their own movie making software, just cant include it in the actual OS.
Now if Microsoft made computer hardware, or rather assembled computers and sold them, they could do whatever the **** they wanted, just like apple.
It seems as though MS is being punished for handing out free basic multimedia editing tools. Free market fail.
But, according to your explanation, MS shouldnt even be able to have a defragger in the OS because OEMs could make money by installing a demo of O&O. How about themes? Should MS only allow one theme so OEMs can install a demo of WindowBlinds? Should Paint be pre-installed? Notepad/Wordpad? WMP/WMC? Sound Recorder? System Restore? Speech Recognition? Remote Desktop?
See where im going with this? Where does one draw this proverbial line and decide what is or is not allowed in an operating system?
That's last sentence is not quite accurate and a little kind to Microsoft. It should read:
“A company that tries to make sure its OS is everywhere the customer looks and they can't see anything else”.
Cause that was their strategy during their rapid growth in the 80's and 90's.
You see this is the problem. The PC market is chock full of great hardware choice, but their are almost no commercial alternatives for software. Microsoft deserve credit too, they seized and opportunity and gave computing to millions for the first time. By providing a single platform for many companies to rally around which allowed for the PC market to rapidly expand. BUT there is no denying they achieved this in part through anti-competitive practices.
The PC market and the word PC is not Microsoft's to own.
No I think the consumer should have the choice as well.
That's why you as a consumer can choose Apple or not.
If you don't choose Apple you get Windows by default (pretty much, it is slowly changing). That's the problem, but it's not Apple's fault or problem to fix.
HP bringing out their own OS would be a good start.
No, they are allowed to hand out free basic multimedia editing tools. And they are at download.live.com.
What they are not allowed to do is use their market position (in part obtained by less than legal means) to make it very hard for anyone else to sell basic multimedia editing tools.
So weird, that I installed Windows 7 on Bootcamp too, but the battery performance is horrible, only about 30mins.
Help if possible
I have a white early 2008 macbook and parallels but i am missing a install.wim file? idk where to locate this file if someone could point me in the right direction to get the file in 32-bit it would be greatly appricated. only reason for wanting 7 is to show off that i have BOTH the latest OS from M$ and Apple. Thanks in advance
I have a white early 2008 macbook and parallels but i am missing a install.wim file? idk where to locate this file if someone could point me in the right direction to get the file in 32-bit it would be greatly appricated. only reason for wanting 7 is to show off that i have BOTH the latest OS from M$ and Apple. Thanks in advance
I'd split this apart, but there are only a few things i'd like to say.
A mac is a pc, dammit. Steve Jobs likes to make people think macs arent pc's and that they are made of magic and unicorn hair, but they arent. They are the exact same thing as an HP, Acer, Dell, or any other computer.
How is including WMM going to make it harder to sell Premiere Elements? If someone wants to just play around with movie editing they are going to go with the cheapest app available. If someone is a bit more serious and wants more features they will go to adobe. Bundling WMM doesnt make the 2nd person want less features in their app, if anything it opens them up to what features they need in an app so they can pick the right mid-grade program. Sure, it might take $5 out of Lenovo's pocket, but it makes it more difficult for the consumer when they have to go online in order to get an email app because everyone else is bitching about not getting to include their demo. Sorry, but im more inclined to look out for the comfort of the end-user than the billion dollar corporation.
You say that apple gives us choice, which they do, but what if i choose OS X? From this point on i cant choose what computer i want, i can choose what computer Apple wants me to have. If i want to use Leopard, i am forced to buy an apple computer, but MS gets in trouble for forcing free *gasp* software onto our computers! How dare they!
While we're wildly off topic anyway, why doesn't Microsoft just do the same thing as Apple then. If they came up with something like "The Winbox 7" and it used only hardware they picked and bundled together into a machine with Windows 7 on it, they could say the hardware and software is theirs alone to do with as they please, just like Apple. Then they could refuse to sell Windows 7 on any other hardware just like Apple. Then nobody could really do anything about it because the only other alternative is PC hardware and Linux, which not a lot of people are willing to do. Taking the same approach as Apple, would they not then be free to bundle whatever software they wanted with their operating system?
Because
A) they're making a crap load of cash selling to others
B) they don't believe in boxing people into their hardware ideas like Apple
C) The PC makers they screwed over would have an anti-trust case filed before the press conference was over and Microsoft would be broken up into little tiny bits by the federal courts.
D) no lone company could ever have the manufacturing capacity needed to pull off this kind of thing.
Wouldn't they make more cash if they took the Apple approach and made a Winbox 7 machine? They could put Windows 7 on it and bundle in Microsoft Office + Microsoft Live Stuff (and call it WinLife '09 or something like iLife) and then charge like $200-300 more for the system than if the software wasn't bundled.
The anti trust part I don't understand though. If they pulled off exactly the same stunts that Apple does by bundling PC hardware together with their OS and iLife stuff and refusing to sell it to "generic PC" vendors, how come an anti trust case would work against them and the same case wouldn't work against Apple. The two companies would be nearly identical in this case. Why would one be illegal and the other be legal?
I used parallels when I installed it, but I chose the option for a custom virtual machine. it still lets you select Windows as a type of V-machine, and then in the next drop down, it has an option for "Windows Experimental 2008" I used that one.. no sound or network drivers but there are ways around that
Me too. I finally got x64 version working. So here's how:
1. If you get a "select cd-rom boot type:" error when booting off the install disc to install, keep reading.
2. Eject disc and use windows to rebuild the ISO. In my case, I installed 32-bit Windows 7 on my MacBook.
3. Rebuild the ISO following these instructions, replacing the "server2008" with Windws7 or whatever name. Be sure to note these changes in the command line and adjust the command given in step 4 to match the folder names (server2008 to whatever).
4. Either try burning the ISO to disc using Windows or copy the ISO file to any external media and boot back to Mac and use Disk Utility to burn the ISO. On Mac, drag the ISO to the desktop, and open Disk Utility. Drag the ISO on the left panel, below the other disks. Insert DVD and click burn.
5. Insert disc and reboot. Before/at the "bong", hold option and select the Windows disc. Install and have fun with Windows 7 (don't think wrong)!!!
Assuming they somehow became power mad and there were no anti-trust laws and there were no law suits and were magically able build a factory about the size of Texas to make them all, they could force the users to do and pay what they tell them to. That's why its illegal.
Because Microsoft has 90% of the operating system market and Apple has 10. Having a monopoly is a required for an anti-trust case. Since the Mac OS X market has been ruled to not to be a separate from windows. Apple doesn't have sufficient market-share to be a monopoly. If it was deemed Mac OS X was a separate market, they'd be guilty as hell of just about every anti-competitive practice out there.
Bottom line, that idea is both illegal and logistically impossible. The computer industry is way to big for one country and way too diverse in needs for a single computer.