A much under-discussed aspect of the new Intel Macs is that, as far as I have been able to glean, Apple has no plans to restrict the ability of users to install Windows on the machines. And why would they? That’s the secret weapon! In the market for a new laptop? Has to run Windows? Why buy a Dell when you can buy a Powerbook with all the same abilities, a sexier design, and the added bonus of being capable of running Mac OS X? Apple is about start selling PCs, and the slightest bit of marketing or consumer word-of-mouth about this fact should ignite a huge increase in hardware sales for Apple at the expense of other Intel-based computer manufacturers.

When’s the last time you sat in a room with a bunch of Linux/Unix nerds? Have you noticed what kind of computers they use? Sure, there are a bunch of PC-compatible laptops, but in many rooms I’ve observed that perhaps the majority of these users are using Apple Powerbooks. Why? Because people like nice hardware. Apple gained many of these customers without selling them on Mac OS X. They install Linux, BSD, or Darwin on their machine and otherwise continue their GTK/X-Windows/Whatever lifestyle as they did before. These users are the warning bell for Dell’s collapsing customer base. People who run Windows in 2006 will be doing so more and more often on Apple hardware.

When Apple releases their first Intel-based computer, it will also be the first computer in history that has the ability to triple-boot Windows, Mac OS, and Linux, all with full performance and compatibility. When the computer maker whose designs have been the envy of the technology world for decades suddenly becomes the most compatible player on the block (Apple!?), you’re looking at a dangerous combination.

Let’s imagine a hypothetical analogy. You’ve got all the car makers in the world. The Fords, Toyotas, Porsches, etc. They all make cars, and people don’t love them, but they don’t hate them. They get them from point A to point B, and some of them are even somewhat well designed. Now imagine the “Superlacar” that looks prettier and performs better than any on the market. It’s sexier than a Maserati, safer than a Volvo, and more fuel efficient than a Toyota Prius. The only problem is it runs on corn oil, while every other car on the market runs on gasoline. A small niche of the public buys into the car because it’s just too sexy to pass up. They make excuses for the vats of corn oil they keep in their garage. They argue into the night with Honda owners that the Superlacar is a better choice, because it’s just so sexy, reliable, safe, and (in the long run) affordable. The Honda owner agrees with most of the points, but it’s damn inconvenient to store those giant vats of corn oil! For most people, it’s just not worth it.

When Superlacar announces that, from this day forward the vehicle will run on gasoline, every other car maker in the world is screwed.

UPDATE: For that matter, the "Superlacar" metaphor is flawed; it only holds if the Superlacar still retains all its desirable traits if you run it on gasoline instead of corn oil. But to make the metaphor consistent, the Superlacar would have to become dowdy, unsafe, and inefficient if you ran it on gasoline; if you wanted it to remain sexy and safe and economical, you'd have to stock all that corn oil like you normally would.

A Mac that you only run Windows on is just a Windows computer that looks stylish; it's no Superlacar. You've still got to run Mac OS X and buy Mac OS X applications in order to get access to the Mac-ness you bought.

UPDATE: Bob Crosley has a much more sober set of predictions.