Perspective: Dare I say this aloud? Boot Camp is a gimmick

Some folks would have liked nothing better than to marry the Macintosh off to the PC world right from the start.

In 1985 Dayna Communications came out with something it called the MacCharlie. This contraption was an expansion box that fit around the Mac so you could run PC and Mac software. The PR at the time trumpeted how users could now enjoy the best of both worlds. But it was an expensive gimmick that caused the system to run like molasses. Even worse, it cost more than a thousand dollars.

Third-party vendors came up with software emulators that marked a considerable step up in terms of performance. Still, it was akin to eating chocolate mousse with gauze lining your mouth: The taste just wasn't right. Under John Sculley, Apple Computer launched a project to port the Mac operating system to the Intel 486 board. But the plug got pulled after Michael Spindler took over as CEO in 1993.

It was akin to eating chocolate mousse with gauze lining your mouth: The taste just wasn't right.

Apple launched its "switcher" campaign in 2002, featuring advertisements quoting people who said they'd switched from a PC to a Mac, but as the company underwent its transformation from box maker to digital-entertainment company, the Mac-Windows issue temporarily faded from view. With only a 2.3 percent share of the U.S. PC market last year, however, the switch campaign has a long way to go. It's all well and good to be part of a self-styled elite, but Steve Jobs can't be satisfied with those numbers.

Doubtless many people still refuse to buy the Mac because of a reluctance to give up certain prized applications that run only on Windows. So it was this week that Apple took matters into its own hands with the introduction of Boot Camp, a Windows utility that lets users of Intel-powered Macs run Windows. The download, which is free and, so far, glitch-free, ignited a veritable media scrum. For good reason. On the surface, it's a can't-lose proposition.

Apple's not endorsing Windows. It's endorsing the idea of Windows running on a machine that it sells. Most of the securities analysts who follow the company immediately upped their price projections. The stock gained 10 percent in the next couple of frenzied trading sessions. As far as the Apple faithful posting on the online chat boards were concerned, Boot Camp was a stroke of genius. Period.

Apple's not endorsing Windows. It's endorsing the idea of Windows running on a machine that it sells.

But dare I say this aloud? Boot Camp is a gimmick. A smart gimmick but a gimmick nonetheless.

Boot Camp functions as a security blanket for PC users who would wet their beds without their favorite Windows application. With one download, Apple removed any lingering barriers holding back the potential universe of switchers.

These folks are still running Windows, but for how much longer? With all due respect to Messrs. Gates, Ballmer and Allchin, Windows makes very few hearts (outside the environs of Redmond, Wash.) go pitter-pat. Folks are not clamoring for Windows; they're clamoring to run Windows applications. Do you think that once they get their hands on a Mac, people won't be the least bit curious to experiment with the Macintosh operating system to see what all the fuss is about?

Apple hopes so. The company won't put it so bluntly, but it has zero interest in getting people to use Windows on a Mac. (No accident that Apple's not going to support Windows on the Mac.) They want the voyeurs to take a peek at Mac OS and be seduced by all its charms.

When America's doughboys returned from World War I, the question was how they'd ever remain on the farm after seeing Paris. When Windows users get a gander of the Mac, how many will remain loyal to Ctrl-Alt-Delete?

Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.

More Perspectives

[madhatt99]

PC/Windows Get over yourself

Hey, Yes I'm a Mac fan. But get over yourself. Perhaps Apple has
created Bootcamp to give our users something we have wanted
for a while. Because some Software companies say it costs to
much to create versions of thier software for Mac. BS.

If you wanna stay in your virus ridden Windows world. Go for it.
Just stop throwing stones. I am so tired of Windows arrogance.
Pathetic

[shaunkanak]

get over yourself, yourself

"If you wanna stay in your virus ridden Windows world. Go for it. "

Ha ha! The old virus rant.
The reason there aren't more viruses for the mac os is because it has such a pitifully small market penetration. Why waste your time making a virus that might hit a few thousand when you can write one that could hit millions? It's economies of scale . . . that and the biggest player does always make the biggest target.

Prediction: If Apples market share grows (and it probably will) with this switch to faster hardware and this windows booter then you will see more and more virused targeting the mac os.

"I am so tired of Windows arrogance. Pathetic"
windows arrogance = kettle
mac snobbery = pot

[Christopher Hall]

Huh?

That wasn't a comment directed at Coop, was it? You know he's a happy Mac user, right?

[vengo]

Windows Arrogance?

That's really funny. Few religious fanatics are as obnoxious and irrational as Mac snobs. It's just an OS, people. Both have good and bad points.

[206538395198018178908092208948]

Virus's on windows

you know i have kicked this around a very long time, switching to a mac because of the virus issue, the boot camp looks very appealing

then a friend told me this, if the mac had 95% of the market share on desktops they would be as virus laden too, it is as simple as popularity whatever is at the top of the heap in computing people will ding at it in any fashon they can

the question i have is can a virus be mutated when it runs in a windows environment, it can also run in the mac environment?? stay tuned this is what i am waiting to see the answer to

[nancydreamy]

I am so over XP

Remember, XP is unsupported on Mac, Virus riddled, spyware saturated. Let's hope it can't show its bad manners by sullying the purity of its Mac host.

Now let's see how Jobs made this customer focused decision. There are about 25 million Mac owners, they can all buy XP, unsupported. All revenue to Gates.

Then there are those buying new Macs, who would buy Macs no matter what. They can now buy XP, unsupported. All revenue to Gates.

Then there are the Dell, HP owners, who need those XP security updates thanks to XP's hacker friendly environment. They might buy a Mac, but they might also buy a new XP liscense, and keep their old Dell, just in case the virus comes Alive. Revenue to Gates. Virus risk to MacIntosh.

Then there are those who think the Mac is still overpriced, however how nice. Revenue to Gates.

Then there are those breast beaters, fearless not needers of support who just want to swim in the cider or sauce that is Apple. Revenue to Jobs, probably some to Gates.

Then the wise Apple loving, shareholding father comes home to find his daughter in tears Her XP Sims 2 doesn't work, she can't use Microsoft Messenger, and what is he going to do about it? Then he finds, somehow she's managed to wipe out his OSX partition. At least he gets to spend his evening with his daughter, planning his next move.

[SystemsJunky]

Boot Camp....Review

"Because some Software companies say it costs to much to create versions of thier software for Mac. BS. If you wanna stay in your virus ridden Windows world."

First off, it is expensive to write an app for the mac when knowone will buy it. Secondly, Virus Ridden what? I havent seen a virus on a windows system in years. nuff said on your subject.

Now to my review.
Although apple has made it possible to run windows on my macbook pro. I do have some very positive notes and some very negative complaints about it.

First off the negatives.
The driver support that Apple provides is less than satisfactory. I beleive this is due to it being in Beta so I can let that slide for now.
However, once the product is ofull blown, i will expect nothing less than full support for All of the quick (f) keys, including the sound, keyboard brightness, screen brightness, monitor switching, also the Microphone/iSight, and a more robust driver for the Video card (ie: Catalyst) The other big problem is Heat. I own a 17" PB G4. It has (or i thought) major heat problems. This new MacBook would cook an egg just sitting idle for 10 minutes. And during game play, it gets a serious case of video lag after a while (about 30 minutes) of playing. The other issue is imaging. I would like to create an image and have the ability to deploy that image on multiple intel based macs at a time.
Still in beta so we shall see. Mac Drive pro is the only util. th

As for the positives.
The setup was quick and painless. I had windows running the way I like it in less than an hour will all of my apps installed. The gameing is great as long as you have a couple of ice packs laying around to keep it from burning the house/office down. Everything else on the system works just like a PC, so its pretty normal. And nice to be able to switch between OS X and Windows.

[CentrOS]

Here's a video of XP booting in 10 seconds on OS X

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.godsipod.com/xponmac/" target="_newWindow">http://www.godsipod.com/xponmac/</a>

Looks real.

[PBenz]

Virtualization will be the REAL gimmick

Charles, Boot Camp is just the 1st step in pacifying the gamers. Virtualization technology built into Leopard will be the key to letting Mac users run Windows apps for which there is no suitable OS X equivalent.

[kcplate]

Virtualization...

Virtualization would be a great trick, but would not have a measurable impact on market share. The hardware is just too expensive to make a dent. It is a niche product.

[rbabillis]

Not a gimmick but incomplete

Re: "Boot camp acts as a security blanket for PC users who would
wet their beds without their favorite Windows application."

There are many windows users who would enjoy switching to OS
X but thier jobs require running mission critical applications that
are windows only. An obvious example is engineering. If you
are designing a building which receives federal funding, the
design must be submitted in AutoCAD, all the heat load
calculation software for sizing HVAC is windows only, and all the
software that matches equipment to specifications is windows
only.

Boot Camp is not a panacea to this problem as you have to
reboot in Windows to access your windows only software. Once
in windows, you'll end up running your e-mail, Office, and other
apps and only run MacOS when you're not working. What we
really need is something reminiscent of the old "switcher"
program from MacPlus/Mac SE days that runs both OS's
concurrently and allows you to switch OS on the fly. Then you
can run MacOS for your daily operation and switch to windows
only when you have to suffer through proprietary applications.
This scenario would create a true "switcher" market.

[Andrew J Glina]

Say it aloud, shout it if you want, but that just will not happen

I have heard a lot of reasons why Apple is just about to regain dominance, but that is the worst. So you think that Windows users will buy an Apple with the intention of using Windows software, but will instead fall in love with Apple software.

Even ignoring the game market, that is not very likely. There are too many PC users who like the lack of hardware lock-in for one, and there is too much inertia for this to happen even in a 5 year time span.

As for Windows lovers, I am one. It "just works" for me, and I have no desire to use a product from a company as arrogant and inflexible as Apple.

[Earl Benser]

It's not a question of dominance....

.... Windows is not likely to lose it's majority of users. You love
it. Most users don't view it emotionally - it just something they
use to get to the apps they want. Hardware lock , not that it
really exists, is irrelevant to them. And so, the same people
won't think about making any change, even if they knew they
could.

But for some people, running windows on a Mac is interesting.
ANd maybe, once they start doing that, they'll discover that
running OS X on a Mac is even better. It's a very worthwhile
potential for Apple.

And by the way, arrogance and inflexibility are whose fault?

[Christopher Hall]

"Just works"

Agree 100%. Long ago, I reached a level of comfort and understanding about what goes on under the hood of Windows. Since then, I've found it quite easy to bend the OS to do just about anything I ask it to, which is never something I could say for Macintosh operating systems.

[Byronic]

Windows is the real 'lock in'

You are so tied to windows. If you get a Mac and run windows on
that, where is the lock in? You can always put your stuff back on
generic hardware.

I think you are too SCARED to try the Mac.

[tipper_gore]

i have to agree

i used windows for years and i've been using a mac for years and frankly there's really not that much of a draw -- they're both pains in the ass for different reasons. now people will be able to experience two different kinds of pains in the ass, whoopee.

[johnrchang--2008]

Don't forget

Apple officially made Macs and Power Macs with DOS Compatibility
cards in the mid-1990s.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=112244" target="_newWindow">http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=112244</a>

[Andrew J Glina]

Fair point

So did Amiga and Acorn. Helped them a lot too...

[jCounsel]

May or may not happen.

Some folks (see other commentors) may find Windows just works for them.

Nothing wrong with that, even if some sound angry over those who like the Mac or its FreeBSD-based OS).

I like the easier integration with Apache and other *nix-derived programs so that I don't have to install WAMP or similar package (for web development...).

Why will I buy a Mac as my next notebook? I don't find that there are any "Windows-necessary" programs. Games? Sure, but the 'big' ones generally get ported or (gasp) can be run on emulators or Windows through the Mac OSX. Even though I work in a field that uses CAD and similar software, there are MANY who use the Mac in that field. What software is "Windows-Only" or doesn't have a good alternative in other OSs?

Curious to see if there really is a gap in software or whether people just haven't looked at the options.

"If it isn't broken, don't fix it" works for me. I don't mind if you don't want to switch. However, don't get angry or defensive because other users see problems with software and want to switch...

Consider it a 'personal choice' issue.

C

[rbabillis]

Re: May or may not happen

What software is "Windows-Only" or doesn't have a good
alternative in other OSs?

There are no alternative heat load simulations and nor many
other specific engineering applications for MacOS. You can run
these, and AutoCAD, under emulation but they are slowww.
When highering CAD draftpersons, they are trained on AutoCAD.
This is what is taught in trade schools. If someone is trained in
other CAD applications, they are most likely self-taught. If you
interface with large companies, Lockheed, GE, etc., you are
exchanging AutoCAD files. Yes there are some alternatives in
CAD apps, but there is not much choice if the CAD files you
receive include a productivity module overlay which is not
supported by other programs.

You are correct that this is a personal choice. You can either run
the applications in windows and increase your IT budget to
accommadate fixing your gear when it is exploited by viruses
and trojans, or run under emulation with limitations at slower
speeds thus reducing productivity.

What I am suggesting is a third choice where each OS runs at full
speed in it's own protected space and putting one to sleep when
the other is in use. From an IT manager's point of view, if
windows is restricted to running mission critical apps, and
MacOS is used to access e-mail, the web, and other activities, we
are afforded the best of both worlds.

[Lewiscopy]

Marketing disconnect

I'm no fan of Gates, but while I admire the sentiment behind your article, I see a marketing disconnect in your logic. In order for people to jump ship from their comfortable Windows boxes, there has to be a reason. Improved performance? Not likely,with few exceptions. More apps? Lower prices? I'm not buying. As an individual, the only reason I'd drop Windows is to tuck it to Gates. As a pragmatist, that won't happen. And I'm pretty sure the same holds true for IT managers. I suspect Linux will gain more converts from the Windows camp than Apple.

[ikecofili]

Hole in your logic Charles?

Do you honestly think that someone who would take the time to buy a Mac, set up bootcamp, install windows and use it would be the kind of user that would be seduced by Mac OS.X?!

Come on!

True, there might be some people that would go for it, but they wouldn't be buying an Intel Mac to start with.

I'm a web developer and I often need to test my sites on Macs. Up till this point, I've been trying to get an ibook G3 on the cheap. Now, because of bootcamp, I'm getting a Mac Book Pro (sexy Titanium) as soon as I have the money for it.

Bootcamp is going to sell more Macs, not convert users from windows to OS X.

[jonosc]

Education

I haven't seen anybody mention the Educational market yet!
All those School Boards/Universities - 'oh we can't have Mac's because they don't run Window app's like the Business World' !
Well... now they do. There's going to be more of those 10,000 ibook/imac orders because by day they run OS X at School/University and by night they play Doom and do reports in Word/Exel/Powerpoint. This is going to be big in Education.

[schubb]

Not likely

Having actually worked as a sys admin in a school system, most schools can not afford $1300 machines and then license windows on top of it. Even when you compare the old Imac, the reason we stopped using them was that if the monitor, sound, network, etc went out, buy a new one. The repair costs were the price of another. Then we had to pay to dispose of them, monitors qualify as hazmat, pc towers did not, thus all Imacs were hazmat disposal.
They are going to buy low end machines, and those are windows boxes.

[cpenao]

The magicial 'UNIVERSE of SWITCHERS'

'Doubtless many people still refuse to buy the Mac because of a reluctance to give up certain prized applications that run only on Windows. ... With one download, Apple removed any lingering barriers holding back the potential universe of switchers.'

You're saying the only reason I don't just pop off an buy a mac is because of some windows app? I don't buy a mac because I don't want specialized hardware. Same reason I don't own an ipod; because it prevents me from using my music where I want. I see everyone and their dog has one, but I won't buy. There are plenty of free market players out there. Admittedly, none with a Lovely Sexy Design like the ipod, but I'm not buying LSD. I'm buying a music player.

I keep hearing that mac is 'virus free', but I haven't had a virus on my system. Ever.

From what I understand, Boot Camp is simply a way for mac users to get access to more software. I don't see a magical universe of folks walking over some imaginary computing line to buy some other hardware. Unless everyone is after LSD.

[Byronic]

You are just brainwashed

You actually hate Apple so much you won't buy an iPod?
Obviously, most people do not hold your irrational fears. Also,
most people realize that iPods are far more open than any windoze
media dependent device.

[sdedalus83]

Simply a reaction

Lets get real people. Apple only released Boot Camp after the web was flooded with reports of windows booting on Macs. It was something they were desperately trying to avoid, but the tweaker community will do anything that the hardware and software companies tell them not to do. So now, Apple has released boot camp to give their tiny slice of the computer market a way to run a much wider variety of software so that they don't come out of it looking like jerks.

I still won't switch. The freedom of the pc platform is infinitely more attractive than the superficial "coolness" of an apple. Lets just hope Microsoft gives us a DX10 for XP and win2K so that the memory glutton known as Vista isn't forced upon all gamers.

[schubb]

Sorry no DX 10 on XP

According to articles DX 10 requires some of the Vista stuff to run.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.cnet.com.au/software/operatingsystems/0,39029541,40061332-4,00.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.cnet.com.au/software/operatingsystems/0,39029541,40061332-4,00.htm</a>

This cnet articles talks about how it needs "the new Windows Vista Display Driver Model."

[gary4books]

Why not?

Our Dod project in 1988 had macs with DOS, but we never used it. Now a computer ought to be a "universal machine" and run just about anything we can toss at it. At least the GI's did not have to be reprogrammed to see the lights of paris and they managed witht he language barrier somewhat well (pig alley was not the real meaning of the French term.) But many might use a Mac with Windows and never learn the Mac OS. it is a learning step.

However, my bottom line is "why not?"

[cooneypete]

Surprisingly short-sighted

Your article is surprisingly short-sighted. Apple is not eyeing a few switchers in this case. They're eyeing THE BUSINESS MARKET!!! Business-critical applications--much more significant applications than Office, I might add--run on Windows and not on OSX. That prevents people from buying Macs for day-to-day business activity.

I am an excellent example. The vast majority of the software I hawk--as well as the demos and other tools--only run on Windows. Thus, it has been impractical for me to get the PowerBook (or now MacBook) that I really want.

That all changed with the new plugin! My next major laptop purchase this year will almost assuredly be a MacBook. And I suspect my move will be just the tip of the iceburg.

Gimmick? Maybe. But a much more powerful gimmick and a much more useful one in the long run than you give it credit for...

Pete C

[Sboston]

IF

If Apple is eying the business market, then they will need to lower their costs on their unints. Business machines have no need to be sexy and you will not find any business man authorize spending more money per unit that does, in his mind, exactly the same thing as a unit that is cheaper.

[Hep Cat]

Charles Cooper doesn't know what he's talking about-

Want proof? Download the latest C|Net podcast about Boot
Camp, in which Cooper claims that Macs "come with 80GB
drives, [and Windows takes 20GB to install] so there's not much
you can really do with it."

I'm paraphrasing, of course, but it's another grand example of
how little C|Net's editorial board knows about the modern Mac
despite the constant advertising-driven Apple headlines.

Charles: Please at least do some studying before you open your
mouth on a podcast or write something like this again.

[Frank_Murray]

Buy the Applications, not the Operating System

Ever since the very early days of Computing I have been telling anyone who would listen to purchase the Applications they want, not the OS. This applied when there was DOS, Windows, AmigaDOS, MAC/OS, and so on. Why? Because it is the application that you will use to do the job. The OS simply runs your application. Granted the OS will determine how ROBUST the application is and how many feature may be available but the fact remains that you will be running EXCEL to do your spreadsheet work, not Windows.

Frank Murray

[Robbo75]

Why switch?

I understand that Macophiles LOVE their Macs. I'm a designer, and I've worked with Macophiles and Macophobics. I personally have used both machines, and I can honestly say I'll never buy a Mac.

It's not that I dislike the cute GUI's or the different commands - I'm smart enough to get used to either. It's that I can't justify paying twice as much for a machine that does the same thing.

Now, I know that Macophiles who read this are getting their "VIRUS" typing fingers warmed up, but allow me to comment: I've never gotten a virus. I download like crazy, and have done so since 1993. I use shareware, and have looked at the occasional pirated warez. No viruses. Besides, why would they sell virus software for Macs if they expected them virus free forever?

As for the "Ctrl-Alt-Del" typers: Macs crash too. Heck, look at iPods! I have one and it crashes almost every day.

So, back to my original point. I know Maccies would love nothing more than if everyone spent $1,700 for the same speed you can get on a PC for $800. The problem is that I don't want to buy all new software. Adobe products ain't cheap.

Finally, I'm sick to death of the entire Mac v Windows war. I'm sick of m4a and wma file formats on music. I'm sick of proprietary software and hardware all together. At least Windows allows for open architecture so third party software and apps are available.

[vchmielewski]

Open architecture?

"I'm sick of proprietary software and hardware all together. At least
Windows allows for open architecture so third party software and
apps are available."

Sounds like an argument for a Mac to me. Ever heard of UNIX,
open-standards? All third party UNIX apps run on OS X. Plus,
Apache? PHP? MySQL? etc. If you want to live in an open-source,
open-standards world, the Mac is the better choice.

[ikecofili]

sadly you have no idea what you're talking about

"Virus writers do it for one of 2 reasons, to get credit card data, or to make a name for themselves amongst the hax0r
community."

1. its testament to the fact that Macs don't run any mission critical stuff (and have a tiny percentage of the computing market), so nobody is worried about breaking into them. Folks will take the time to steal your Mac, because it looks sexy, they just won't spend the time to write code to break into it, its just not worth it. Look on news.com, there was a challenge to break into a Mac box a few weeks back ... it took all but 2 days.

2. I'm no hacker, but I know just writing a virus for Macs won't do that much for your "street cred".

Tell you what, how about you stop reciting Apple propaganda and you start backing up your assertions with facts eh?

I love Apple stuff, they make sexy computers and I'll buy a Mac Book Pro soon as I can come up with $2000 (see my earlier post) but this kind of uninformed "fanboism" really gets on my nerves

[Robbo75]

True that, G!

Great line about nothing on a mac being "mission critical". Like Graphic Designers make SO much money that people want to break into their computers! Hax0rs know that if you bought a Mac, you probably enjoy p!ssing away your money foolishly. $1,700 for a computer that "looks cool"? Purchasing a new O.S. every year? Mac users: when's the last time your credit card had a zero balance?

[moopie23]

I suppose that you do?

yes, I'm sure that all of the macs down at NASA and the DOD in
the States aren't running mission critical stuff.

yup. I'm sure that's why the NSA has a computer security pdf
&lt;<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/29/1353206" target="_newWindow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/29/1353206</a>&gt; out
on the web for how to set up your Mac - it's for people in the
world, not that they are running our national intelligence at least
partly on macs. that'd be crazy!!

Yeah, no reason for hackers to try to break into that stuff. it's
unimportant and gets you no "street cred" to break into the
DOD, NSA, or NASA computers. That was done in War Games in
the 80's, who needs to do it again. All you'll end up doing is
playing tic-tac-toe.

Also, that incident where the person broke into the Mac, which
was done in under an hour, also allowed people to get local
access, meaning, they had a user name and password.
Essentially, at that level, it's not called hacking, it's just called
changing things on your own computer. Of course the guy
owned it in an hour, he was given possession of it. The next
week, some university professor offered the same challenge, but
didn't give local access. No one broke in during the week it was
up. NO ONE.

If you're so concerned about people backing up their assertions
with facts, where are your facts? Looks like FUD to me. Got any
hyperlinks to what you're saying? or, should we assume you've
got facts because you spell things like your "l33t". Seriously, that
gives you no credibility.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

NOT A Gimmick

It's inevitable that virtualization software will be here soon and allow WinXP/Linux to run inside OSX. (and yes, I will rely on it - my music *subscription* service only runs on win32 [heaven forbid someone would use something other than iTunes] - and my MS Smartphone (and music player) likely has no address sync support in OSX)

Anyways, as a Windows user who would like to switch, the loss of any games that I presently own and those new releases which will not be ported to Mac (for some time or ever) and need direct hardware access - virtualization will simply not foot the bill.

Boot Camp covers the one gap which ONLY Apple can fill best (i.e. live repartitioning of it's own OS and supporting drivers for it's own hardware)

Anyways - as soon as the virtualization software comes out and the first workstation intel macs are out --- you'll see me at the Apple store.

[nancydreamy]

Apple's bait and switch

I prefer a more Soviet style of solution for the opearting system. Windows must be victorious, death to the aPPLE. oPerating sytems are boring, and Windows is insurmountable in that regard. Having ditched the Mac for Windows, I can say that the chief difference which will prevent any serious user from switching is the one button mouse against the two button mouse. This difference is VERY big. The Xp user using Mac apps will keep rightclicking blankly right
clicking, while the Mac user will keep leftclickiing leftclicking leftclicking, and Nothing will happen.
I must say that the more aPPLE'S DESKTOP strategy becomes one of vertical integration, the smaller their market share. They have truly become the Model T of the PC world, albeit painted in pthalocyanine green. Does Steve Jobs have a son?

[vchmielewski]

You're kidding right?

"I can say that the chief difference which will prevent any serious
user from switching is the one button mouse against the two
button mouse. This difference is VERY big. The Xp user using
Mac apps will keep rightclicking blankly right
clicking, while the Mac user will keep leftclickiing leftclicking
leftclicking, and Nothing will happen. "

I'm going to assume you are kidding, but just in case you aren't,
Mac's now ship with two-button mice. And, if you don't like the
one they give you, you can use any two-botton USB mouse you
like. Anyone who uses this argument clearly hasn't used a Mac
in a while.

[djlysol]

nice title but no substance

What? The only thing i gleaned from your post is that you think the
mouse provided by apple for their desktops is inadequate for a
windows switcher. So i geuss two would be better or three or how
about five. Surely five buttons on a mouse will playcate any one
with a button fetish. well, the mighty mouse has five buttons and is
shipped with all the new imacs. Also, you can use almost any
mouse with an apple and it responds to right clicks. Sorry but i
think this is a non issue.

[edgedesign]

Mighty Mouse

FWI: Apple now offers a 2 button mouse for those used to the
Windows OS and could not figure out how to plug-in a third party
solution.

[Thomas, David]

Ahh dang, you reeled me in ...

" ... prevent any serious user from switching is the one button
mouse against the two button mouse. This difference is VERY big ..
"

Where have you been? You have displayed complete ignorance, as I
am typing this on a mini-mac with a two button mouse.

[bsilva]

Many Sides to the Story

I am an avid Mac fan. The release of Intel-based Macs, followed
by Boot Camp, has shaken everything up for Mac users. Was
Boot Camp a publicity stunt? Sure -- partially. But like every
story, there are more sides to it. For one, to echo sentiments of
other posters, if you're running an Intel-based computer, why
not be able to run Windows? It was bound to happen, it was just
a question of whether it would be accomplished by hackers or by
Apple. I doubt many Mac users will be using Boot Camp to
switch to Windows as their primary OS. So, it's a show of
confidence by Apple in their OS. It may not transform the IT
world, but it certainly does raise a barrier and open possibilities
for PC users stuck deep in a corporate world in which Windows
is entrenched. It will allow game fans who are also Mac fans
(almost a fundamental contradiction) exist happily. It certainly
just generally adds flexibility to a Mac and provides a "security
blanket" for timid switchers.

It never even occured to me that Apple did this for any reason
other than to get people to feel more comfortable switching to
Macs, not to open up the OS world to supreme flexibility. You
stated, "The company won't put it so bluntly, but it has zero
interest in getting people to use Windows on a Mac." I think they
have it put it pretty bluntly: "When you load Windows you're
taking on the risk that entails," said Apple VP Phil Schiller. It
simply gives people the option.

And, to throw my opinion into the incessant bickering that
ensues whenever Apple and Microsoft are brought into the same
conversation: I use Macs because they simply work. I don't buy
the argument that you have to give up flexibility to use a Mac.
On the contrary, you get full shell access to the system where
you can poke and prod away. You get all the time-tested,
standard UNIX programs and utilities that are the perfect image
of flexibility as they hail from the shell-scripting world. You give
up the choice to put together a mish-mash of hardware, which I
did gleefully before I switched to Mac. But with a Mac you don't
spend your time digging for obscure reasons that one piece of
hardware won't work, finding updated device drivers, dealing
with corrupted DLL's or searching for system files that somehow
got lost in the void.

I use Mac at home. I use Windows at school. I use Linux at work.
I don't bother myself getting caught up in animosity towards one
system or the other. But at the end of the day, I know I can
always depend on the Mac to function as it is supposed to,
without hassle, so I can spend my hours living life instead of
maintaining a box of computer hardware. Computers are tools
for life, and I've found with the Mac that I can focus on life
instead of the tool.

[vchmielewski]

This changes things

For large enterprises like mine (a university), the power
consumption of the Core Duo resembles a mobile processor
while the performance is desktop capable. AnandTech believes
that a properly engineered core duo desktop can consume half
the power of a comparable Pentium desktop, about 60 to 80W
compared to 120-150W.

This power savings spread out over hundreds, if not thousands
of desktops, makes the energy savings program that we
financed to replace all our flourescent lamps with high efficiency
T-8's look like chump change.!

The list price of a 2.0Ghz iMAC with 1GB of memory and a 20"
LCD is $1800. While a comparably equipped HP business PC
without any LCD monitor is $1659!

There seems little doubt that iMac's that can boot Windows are
the better choice!

[S. Ahmad]

Make True Comparisons.....

I don't know who you are buying your PCs from or if you are even doing any sort of research into the PCs you are comparing your beloved iMacs with, but I can get you a Pentium® D Processor 820 w/Dual Core Technology (2.8GHz,800FSB) with a 19 inch flat panel for under $1000. Model is the Dell XPS 200. Look at them....

The same is for HP models, you can get a much better machine than for the same price iMacs.

So according to my math I can almost get 2 PCs of BETTER specs for the price of your iMac.


SAhmad

[john55440]

A No-Impact Gimmick/Publicity Stunt

More than anything, BootCamp is a publicity stunt, designed to get the company media attention. I guess they wanted to remind the general public that Apple makes something other than iPods. :-)

Like the overwhelming majority of Windows users, I have absolutely no interest in either Apple computers or OSX.

I certainly have no interest in buying overpriced Apple harware, buying a full-version of Windows XP, and installing Windows XP.

Bootcamp with have little impact on Apple's miniscure marketshare.

Why the big deal?

Some background: For about 8 years, I used a Mac as my primary desktop, along with a DOS/Windows 3.1 machine for the development software that wasn't available for the Mac. When we were bought by a company that was Windows-centric, we started with W95, and are now running W2K Pro and XP Pro. I have used the latest mac OS just a bit in various stores, and this leads to my observation - so far, I haven't seen anything that makes me want to spend the extra money to buy a Mac. My W2K and XP installations seem to be very stable, the applications run well, and occasional problems are handled without too much fuss. The idea that people will buy a Mac to run Windows, then be "seduced" by the Mac OS are, in my limited experience opinion, wishful thinking. Most people I know DO NOT CARE what OS they are running, and many don't even know what OS they have (!). They just want to be able to run certain applications as inexpensively as possible, with minimal hassle, and Windows does this adequately. The idea that people will buy Mac hardware, initially to run Windows, then somehow switch to the Mac OS is fantasy.

[dlastovka]

Yes

You are exactly right. Mac users think that once a Windows user tries a mac they never go back. I not only work with macs, but I also own one. Windows XP is a much better operating system than OSX. I find OSX to be very limiting. Plus everything just works better with Windows.

[3.141592653589793238...]

Its not a gimmick, It was already done.

This story dose not have the fact that a couple weeks before Boot Camp was announced that someone had figured out how to get Windows on the new Macs. In doing so he won a prize of over $10,000. It seems to me that apple probably would never came out with Boot Camp unless someone had figured out it could be done. According to apple it couldnt be done.

[Byronic]

You are wrong, stick to commenting on what you know.

Apple's OFFICIAL comment on this was that they would not
'prevent anyone from running windows' on the Intel systems.
Then, the new systems came out with EFI--that was the only
thing preventing anyone from running windows on their macs.

MS, being the chicken ****** they are, prompty removed the EFI
plans from that distant promise on the far off horizon known as
'Longhorn' er, Vista.

As if we haven't already been doing this for eons with Virtual PC,
and Soft PC before that. Yeah, it was slow, but it always
worked, and many times just as well as a generic, run of the mill
PeeCee.