Comments on: Dare I say this aloud? Boot Camp is a gimmick
Apple's new software lets Windows run on the Mac. But CNET News.com's Charles Cooper says a different OS is really the focus. Guess which one.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Apple to buy Quattro Wireless for $275 million
January 4, 2010 8:25 PM PST
- 'Kama Sutra' most pirated ebook of 2009
January 4, 2010 7:20 PM PST
- Forrester: 5 keys for application development in 2010
January 4, 2010 7:10 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
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.
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!
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
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.
'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.
as you go along. Nevermind.
Yeah, nobody running windows wants to try a Mac. Riiiiight....
runs windows want to go out and pay twice as much for new
hardware so they can run it on a mac (and at the same speed
they can on a cut-rate Dell)."
A cut-rate Dell doesn't compare to any Mac I've ever used. If
cost is the only criteria you care about then, you probably won't
be interested in a Mac, although your 'twice as much' claim is a
little exaggerated . Get whatever you like and enjoy it. If cost
was the only factor that determined what people bought, the
world would be a pretty boring place, wouldn't you agree?
Back to the comment.
If went to www.cpu.com I could build a really nice PC for alot less than 1000.00. and The newspaper always has cheap monitors. I got my 21' for 50.00 out of the newspaper.
can't run their favorite app on a Mac, I'm getting into the sheet
business!
now that Apple has introduced this feature. Many Windows users
admire the Mac's ease of use, better security and highly-rated
iLife suite. They would rather organize photos, edit home
videos, burn DVDs, remix music, stream iTunes wirelessly
throughout their homes, and more on a Mac. Although, for one
reason or another they still have a need or desire for Windows.
Perhaps it's a custom industry application that has not yet been
ported to OS X that holds them hostage. Maybe the application
is available for both platforms, but the user's employer requires
a Windows version. Or... most likely, and from my experience...
the user has simply become accustomed to the Windows OS and
are somewhat worried about their ability to 'think
different' (learn a slightly different way of doing things). Having
Windows on the same machine as OS X provides a safety net or
security blanket for those interested in crossing over. If they
have to bring work home from a Windows environment, they'll
be covered while still being able to enjoy their new Mac.
Most likely these users will be anxious to use their new Macs
and all the great features of OS X for their home life. They will
quickly realize that the UNIX base, tighter security, virus-free
environment, plus available PRO and business applications make
the Mac a serious machine - fast and easy to use.
Hello Trojan.
wanted the option to run multiple operating systems on one
machine for years. Who cares if Apple expects people to buy
more Macs as a result? Or if Microsoft will sell more copies of
their OS? The point is that this was a no-brainer for both
companies. Microsoft doesn't have to do anything and Apple
only had to develop a very simple firmware update and software
package. Both of them win, and users get more options.
Personally, as a Mac user, I've long been underwhelmed by the
Asian language support on Mac compared to Windows, and now
have no reason to consider getting a Windows machine for this
purpose. This type of keeping-the-customer happy is worth the
cost of their piddly development costs, regardless of whether
anyone switches from Windows.
Suddenly, I hear the fans are raving over it... Once it runs windows on an intel processor... Well, it's just an expensive hardware PC that runs Windows. And speed? Well, of course it's fast.
Mac has just become another hardware manufacturer for Windows brand PC's. That's all. It just happens to run a mac OS as well.
Multiple OS's on standard hardware has been around forever. Those who ran non mac before didn't want macs OS and they still won't... So, now Mac is a Wintel clone machine..
Welcome to the real world.
with Intel chips that went inside Macs once upon a time. No, it
wasn't a full-blown machine, it was a daughter card you could
install in the first (and, IIRC, second) generation PowerMacs. The
daughter card was often referred to as a DOS card, because with
it you could run MS-DOS and, on top of that, Windows. Some of
the 68040 Mac Quadra machines also had the ability to take
these DOS cards.
Orange PC also released 3rd party cards to compete with the
official ones you could buy from Apple, and Orange PC's cards
were a bit faster as I recall.
The ability to run Microsoft x86 software hosted on a Mac has a
long, long history at Apple. This is just the latest iteration, and
the cleverest, because now running Windows on a Mac at native
speeds doesn't require a clever piece of hardware, it just
requires software, which is available from Apple as a free
download. (Pity you still need to pay for your copy of Windows!)
More info at the following URL: http://www.lowendmac.com/
archive/06/0407.html
users to actually run Windows on Mac hardware and hopes that
they eventually will compare it to Mac OSX, that Apple who has
something around 2-4% of marketshare can create more
turbulence in the industry than MS who has around 95% even with
all their product announcements, inluding Vista which is supposed
to be their great new flagship OS....why??
But look at the numbers. 2.3 percent of the market. Read that again. 2.3 PERCENT. In a world that has been mostly computerized in homes and offices, the fact that Macs only have 2.3 percent of the market is telling evidence that something is amiss! What could it be? Could it be the lack of available software? I could be wrong and I am sure that many people will point it out, but it would seem that the sheer lack of available software titles for a Mac would be one very big reason to stay away. I am sure that for every program that does something in Windows, there is something in the Mac world that will do the same thing or similar. Who is going to train those people to use the new application? Who is going to pay for those people to train 500+ users on a new OS and applications?
Most of us on these boards are technically oriented people. By that I mean, most of us here probably have a pretty good understanding of technology. Now look at your coworkers. Your family members. Imagine moving them to another platform. If they are already running the platform you know everything about, whether is be Windows or Mac, imaging moving them to Linux. Or Novell's new Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop. Sure, the Suse desktop looks a lot like Windows. Sure, you can use OpenOffice to get around having to pay for MS Office. But could you train them to use these new applications? Would you even want to? Who is going to pay for the downtime and training?
In the computer world, almost nothing can't be done. But most people couldn't care less about what can't be done. Most people know what they know about computers to get through the day. Most computer users that you come across on any given day know how to surf the web (with ONE of the many available browsers) and they have the little things they know in MS Word or Excel. Very few know anything about computers beyond that. No business that wants to remain profitable is going to change that. And most people are too busy at home to learn a new OS and new applications.
With all that in mind, yes, it is a gimmick for Apple to release this software. Because the only way for Apple to gain significant market share is with new users, not converts. Sure, Apple will pick up converts here and there but the majority simply will not switch for any one or more of the reasons I have outlined above.
Macs are great computers. I use them for certain things and love how they just work. And saying that the release of Boot Camp is a gimmick is not an insult. Many Mac users will take it as such simply because most Mac users are fierce verbal warriors when they perceive that their beloved Macs are being attacked. But take Boot Camp for what it is. A marketing gimmick to take away that last reason for those that are on the edge of the cliff and can't wait to jump off the Windows mountain. More gimmicks will come, if Apple is actually serious about gaining market share. Don't attack the mechanism that should yield what many of you wish for. Expanded use and love for the Mac.
The main reason you hear why people buy wintel is because they think they need to because of work or X app. It's not because the like wintel, they don't. Often they are just afraid.
Now they don't have to be.
Time to buy a new computer, buy a cool mac. Load the copy of XP from your old computer before throwing it out.
Now you have everything you think you need, a cool computer, and a whole new world to discover. Soon you'll never look back.
And I work with windows, unix, linux, and macs on a daily basis. I'll always take Macs (and OS X) first, given a choice.
Mac and Windows systems do pretty much the same things but in very different ways. Before some fanatic on either side jumps on me, please note that I am not saying either one does any one thing any better than the other)
I am a security Admin for a multi-domain site and commonly use both platforms for varying purposes. What I (and 99% of my colleagues) have observed over the last 10 years or so is that:
1) Nearly all worms, viruses, trojans, etc use to transmit via a common vulnerability.
2) Both platforms have a wide variety of vulnerabilities. It would be irresponsible for
me to list them here, but a simple search on www.symantec.com's virus library will return
loads of results for both Macintosh and windows viruses (dating as far back as System 2.0
to present)
3) Hackers, Phreakers, etc, generally do what they do for one of two reasons: fun or profit. The latter are the ones to worry about, regardless of your platform. No matter what you are using, I cannot stress enough the need for a PHYSICAL firewall between your system and the internet. I have yet to see a software firewall on either platform that can stand up to a well planned direct attack. Those that hack for fun have a sort of 'street cred' or point system in place that gives preference to their work for either the number or difficulty of systems affected.
If we are to assume arbitrary (defined as "completely made up for example's sake") that there are 1 million computers in the world (remember, completely made up number) and that Macintosh systems comprise 2.3% of them (latest stat I could Google up), that means only 23,000 are Mac systems.
This would mean that a hacker who managed to bring down every single Mac in the world would only achieve a very small number of conquests. Now obviously there are more Macs in the world than 23,000 but how many are really in use? If there are 3 Billion computers in the world, only sixty-nine million would be Macs. By contrast, in that same example there would be two billion nine hundred thirty-one million Windows based PC's. It doesn't take much to admit that the numbers are heavily skewed to the Windows side of the spectrum.
This would mean that any vulnerability shared by both platforms (such as a vulnerability in IIS handling, for example) would potentially hit 45 Windows systems for every Mac system, regardless of the fact that they both share the same vulnerability. Think about that: If both systems were completely EQUAL, it would not be a fair comparison to say that one is better than the other simply by comparing viral stats. It is, at the outset, a flawed argument.
INSTEAD - I would use a different argument to decide which platform is better. Patching and updating. I am very happy to see that in recent years Apple has finally begun actively updating it's products. This is the only responsible action that they could have done to repair the vulnerabilities that they and we all know exist. Trust me, I patch mac networks for a living - There are many ways to bring one down. Last week one of my team was able to breach the firewall and bring down a fully patched iMac in our test lab in less than 30 minutes using a UNIX based exploit sent through a known networking vulnerability. In order to block this vulnerability from our production network we had to block the port required, and reroute all other non-dangerous services that used that port. This is something we had to do, it was not something Apple's OS magically did for us.
Similarly, I would encourage Windows to step up it's security patching program by incorporating more default lock downs of systems resources. Many are configured out of the box as 'not configured', as opposed to 'allow' or 'deny'. By configuring them as 'deny' and simply prompting the user to enable them when first used, a lot of vulnerabilities that are not commonly needed would not be present to propagate an infection.
What is my point, you may ask? The perfect OS probably doesn't exist. As soon as it is created, someone like me will publish a complicated or simple means of getting it do something that it?s owner probably would prefer it not.
In this way all OS's are critically flawed (LINUX, UNIX, Windows, Mac, etc), and it is up to the user (that's YOU) to make sure that whatever you are using is patched and secured properly. Operating a sailboat is very different than driving a motorboat, but both can be used safely to get from point A to point B if the owners operate them properly.
Which OS is my favorite? None of your business!!
The Mac jihadists need to face the facts: XP has, finally, at least as good usability as OSX. If you need Final Cut Pro, you need Mac. Otherwise, there's just no need to limit yourself to that tiny island of snobby users these days. The ability to load XP and not buy two versions of all my software is reason enough to cheer Boot Camp. Sign me up!
All the best,
Ron Wagner
The basic methodology was to load Apple's OS in MS's virtual machine mode (in order to auto-detect all the host systems' ports), use the group's custom boot.ini to compensate for the alien OS at boot, and it ran great. There are still a bunch of sites on the web that do the same stuff and if you were inclined I'm sure that boot.ini and install instructions are still floating around out there - Give it a Google...
Comments like these are why I unsubscribed to all CNet publications. I ran across this in an rss feed. CNet is good for two things, a good laugh when you compare user ratings with reviewer ratings, and a good source of valid information from the user ratings themselves.
I would hope such childish comments from a Senior Editor would cause a major shakeup in any mainstream, reputable publication.
Smell ya later!!
- Who Cares?
- by cloudripper April 10, 2006 11:26 AM PDT
- I bought a 4WD SUV to get places most cars won't. 90% of
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Who Cares?
- by Charleston Charge April 10, 2006 12:06 PM PDT
- Only commies like the mountains. Just kidding but you're absolutely right about everything else. It doesn't matter one single bit. If you are happy with the tool that you use then why waste your time convincing the world that your choice is the best. I'm sure all of the comments like "Macs suck and Windows sucks, switch to what I'm using instead" are really going to convince the other side to convert one way or the other.
- Like this
-
Showing 2 of 6 pages (304 Comments)American homes subscribe to cable TV; I don't 'cause I rarely
watch TV. When I bought my DVD and CD players, I didn't toss
my VCR or my turntable -- the vinyl won't fit on a CD tray. I
don't buy A&F T-shirts to impress the impressionable. And I'd
rather spend a day in the mountains than on the beach. Because
of any one of these things, someone on this board's going to tell
me I'm stupid, I'm an idiot and most likely a Communist.
Whether a product has a huge market share or niche loyalty, why
should I care? I'm a graphic designer and I've always used a Mac
because I LIKE it. Period. Why should I care if you think they're
too expensive? Why should I care if you think they'll never rise
above 5% market share? I think video games are a waste of
money and time, but why should you care what I think? If I'm
happy with the tools that help me make a living, why should I
care what you think? The answer is I shouldn't and neither
should you.
If you're confident enough to decide what's best for you in spite
of partisan, knee-jerk rhetoric, then more power to ya.