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
- China arrests thousands in Web porn crackdown
January 2, 2010 6:26 PM PST
- Application packaging for cloud computing: A proposal
January 2, 2010 4:56 PM PST
- When policemen are caught looking at Web porn
January 2, 2010 4:16 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
Another thing I do not understand is that Apple is not bringing OS X in shape for the rerular Intel platform (meaning Windows PC's). In that case, Windows users would be ready to take a sneek peak on OS X, and fall in love with it. Thus gebnerating an interesting amount of inhcome for Apple: think of the present number of Windows users, all poptential buyers of OS X in this case. Wauw! And, maybe even a second step for them could be buying a Mac, longing for better hardware stuff! Now, THIS is true long term marketing strategy, as far as I am concerned, not Boot Camping.
Steve, please lighten up and grab your chance. You most certainly will not regret it! Signed, a Dutch Mac user ever since day one of the Mac (and most of the Apples before that).
Microsoft announced that -if you wanna run Vista- in about 50%
of the cases you will have to buy a new PC. Since at least half
(and meaby even more) of the PC's present is use are not
equipped heavy enough to run Vista. So: it would be very wise
for Apple to jump in now with OS X (like I stated earlier) on the
regular Intel ,platform, het those users hooked on OS X, and
then get a second wave of income in selling Macs by the time
Vista hits the shelves. Getting used to OS X, the present PC users
wilkl not buy a heavier PC, but a Mac. Please listen Steve: you
cannot hit Microsoft better than running this strategy. You can
hit them twice! Do it. Now!
OS X in shape for the rerular Intel platform (meaning Windows
PC's)."
>> Your inability to understand why OS X is not made available
for basic Wintel machines is just a continuation of the PC world's
failure to understand Apple and the Mac. Apple has no interest
in wading through the minefield of the thousands of peripherals
for the PC, not is Apple about to create drivers as nneded for
those peripherals. Apple uses EFI and requires peripherals which
respond to EFI, eg., true plug and play items. PC peripherals just
don't have a clue about plug and play.
So Apple doesn't bother with non-Mac peripherals, and doesn't
have to bother with Mac peripherals. Not a bad way to go.
Also, Apple isn't interested in selling PC's. Apple isn't interested
in sellingcopies of OS X. Apple sells Macs, with OS X installed. If
you have a PC, then you had better like WIndows or Unix/Linux,
because that's all that will run on it. (The OSX86 boys will get
upset about being blown off, but until OSX86 gets some sort of
corporate sponsor, it's just a curiosity for the nerds - and not
much of one at that.)
Your vision of a 'true long term marketing strategy' is both
irrelevant and wrong. BUt, you are a Mac user, and that does
speak much for your basic intelligence.... ;-)
Steve hates Bill, but Bill happens to have 75 bazillion applications written for his OS, compared to Steves 20. Steve wants 75 bazillion applications available for his OS, and realizes the only way to do this is piggy back Bills OS.
I'll say, 10.??? is a nice looking OS and the machines are a neat Silvery color (insert ooohhh'ss and aaaahhhh's here); but in reality there hella over priced considering the same machiens are available in the PC world that run just as fast (if not faster).
Problem being, Steve has a few applications that people use, iTunes and.......maybe Final Cut pro??!
The other apps that are used are all owned under the umbrella name of Adobe (Macromedia included); other than that, I'm not finding the benefits here!
much greater ease of use, less virusses. Macs work WITH you,
not AGAINST you linjke Windows does. And I know, I use both
(Windows at work, a company policy so I have to, and Mac at
home). And I can assure you: there are somewhat more than 20
apps. If you would like to try them all to the bones, it would take
you a couple of years to taste. And what about MS Office? And
FileMaker Pro, being a very strong database environment that
any user can understand (or would you like to fight along with
Oracle, SQL and whathaveyou... FileMakr reads them too, you
know). Sorry Bri Lo, you're luring too.
time and distort the discussions in things like: the virus, the
market share, and all that stuff that have being discussed by
Mac/Winzealots over and over. It is fun, and most of the times
makes me smile, not because I find it funny but, I found it
stupid.
So I`ld like to contribute to the stupidity, just for the fun of it.
Here my two cents contribution to stupidity.
You choose what is best for you and your wallet, and yes, apple
computers are like kalvin clain while the rest are fruit of loom, or
just home made troussers... which are cheap, so poor people
can buy them. Soon there will be "tech stamps" so the homeless
can build their own xp capable systems, hopefully, they will get
an "xp stamp" or they will have to install linux.
Yes, there are tons of games for Win-DOS and only the best
make it to OS X after several months, but on the other hand,
technology is always late to the windows enviroment. In other
words a Mac user have to wait like up to two years for a game to
be ported to OS X (without boot camp) While a Win user have to
wait from 4 to 6 years to enjoy what Mac users have being using
and is almost obsolete in OS X.
Now all you MacUsers, go and enjoy your high-tech life then sit
and wait for games to be port.
While Win Users enjoy the best gaming XPerience wasting their
time (and as a result,) wasting their lifes on a delussional and
virtual world of fantassy.
My 2 cents.
Boot Camp is not a gimmick. Obviously Apple wants to get more people to buy their computers. If the best way to get Windows-based customers to buy new Macs is to provide a means of running Windows on the Macs, so be it.
Most of us understand Apple's thinking--that their new customers will eventually turn away from Windows over time in favor of a more secure, better designed OS.
FWIW, a virtualized solution a la Parallels would be a better idea. We'll see what Apple plans for 10.5 in a few months.
This is one thing I HATE about News.com: your headlines are inflammatory and misleading. In this case, Charles Cooper, you're stating the obvious, but you're doing it rather poorly.
warranted the breathless writing and the "Dare I say this aloud?
Boot Camp is a gimmick" headline. We - and many others - been
saying it all along: Boot Camp lets potential switchers take their
"Windows insecurity blanket" along with them where, after a bit
of side-by-side testing, Mac OS X will win their hearts and
minds. It ain't rocket science, but we certainly believe that it's
going to work for Apple, big time. We've seen what happens
when you take a Windows-only person and expose them to Mac
OS X for a couple of weeks. "Once you go Mac, you'll never go
back" isn't just a cute saying, it's the truth.
Also according to IDC, Apple Mac's 2005 U.S. market share was
4% on 32% growth year over year, not the "2.3 percent" stated by
Cooper.
I haven't done the market research so this is just a guess, but let's break the potential PC-to-MAC switcher market down:
Of the 96% computer users who use Windows -
Probably 8% are developers. Why would they switch? They would become limited to programming in Java or C++. So let's cross that 8% off the list.
Gamers are probably 35%. Why would they switch? Mac doesn't have many games and they are slow to the market. So let's cross them off the list.
"Simple" users (those who are either still afraid of technology or don't care how great their computer is and just want to use e-mail and limited internet) are probably 30%. Why would they want to pay thousands of dollars more for a computer that does what their current computer already does? Cross them off the list.
Those who have to use a computer at work because it is required but don't use one at home probably make up 20%. No company in the world is going to spend thousands on a MAC when they can get a Dell with a monitor for $350 (unless they are some type of a media company). So cross them off the list.
That leaves 7% of the 96%. Not much of a market.
BIG PICTURE PEOPLE, follow the money.
Move along, nothing to see here.
THAT"S THE REAL GIMMICK HERE.
10 points CNET, O points me.
drivers, when drivers aren't the issue. Apple doesn't use drivers.
Mac peripherals just log in during the boot using the EFI
approach. . And Apple will not be concerned with any peripheral
that doesn't properly log in during the boot. It just is ignored.
If the peripheral does log in, no problem - but that's a decision
by the manufacturer to expand the peripheral ROM code with
the proper coding. Again, Apple has no interest. Since 90%+ of
the peripherals will go into PC's, and since the Mac already has
excellent peripherals that meet Mac requirements, it's a bit hard
to expect that any manufacturer would want to expend the
energy to upgrade their product(s).
But, you never can tell for sure.
Using a computer is not ABOUT "loyalty" - it is about functionality. You yourself said: "Folks are not clamoring for Windows; they're clamoring to run Windows applications."
Granted, there are a few (2.5% ??) zealots out there who DO have a loyalty to an OS, and that loyalty is preventing them from using the vast wealth of application software that exists for the Microsoft Operating System.
Only in the minds of a few Apple bigots is this a "war of loyalty". In fact it has always been a "war of functionality" - at least for 97% (or so) of us.
Windows has more apps because Windows has more apps. People write apps for Windows because more people have Windows. More people have Windows becuse ther are more apps. That is a cycle that no "peek" at the sexiness of the Mac side will break.
Yes, the Mac side will likely look better and even act better.
But you will still have to run Windows to get to use the majority of the apps you want to use.
the apps you want to use"
I don't. I have WIndows for just one app, and one alone. And I
control that app using a Mac.
fine & I'm doing everything that I want to do. What MS app is it
that I absolutely need. You have no idea what you are talking
about. Most users on the Windows side are not loyal to anything.
They use what they use at work. Period. Most work environments
don't give people a choice. They are forced to use what the IT
Dept. decides they should use (Windows). I am not a
zealot...sounds like you are though. Most Mac users have used
both. I use Windows at work & a Mac at home. I must be a
zealot. I made a choice & so have others. It has nothing to do
with zealotry. Why does that seem to bother types like yourself?
Do you care what kind of car I drive? Then why do you give a
crap about my choice, or anyone else's, in a computer. It's as if
you Windows zealots are threatened. I have a hard time
understanding your mentality. Quick...start calling me names. I
have been listening to them for years. As usual from ignorant
individuals.
fine & I'm doing everything that I want to do. What MS app is it
that I absolutely need. You have no idea what you are talking
about. Most users on the Windows side are not loyal to anything.
They use what they use at work. Period. Most work environments
don't give people a choice. They are forced to use what the IT
Dept. decides they should use (Windows). I am not a
zealot...sounds like you are though. Most Mac users have used
both. I use Windows at work & a Mac at home. I must be a
zealot. I made a choice & so have others. It has nothing to do
with zealotry. Why does that seem to bother types like yourself?
Do you care what kind of car I drive? Then why do you give a
crap about my choice, or anyone else's, in a computer. It's as if
you Windows zealots are threatened. I have a hard time
understanding your mentality. Quick...start calling me names. I
have been listening to them for years. As usual from ignorant
individuals. How many apps do you think people actually use
outside of business? In short what is it that you can do that I
can't?
In fact, once you load a working copy of Windows XP SP2 on an Intel-based Mac you'll be able to run whatever Windows software you like. So, it truly is a "best of both worlds" situation for those who like Apple design but still need the ability to run Windows applications.
If Apple wishes to get rid of Windows OS, they could do so overnight by porting the MAC OS to the IBM platform.
Apple will not do that because they would lose their hardware sales.
Microsoft on the other hand could port Windows to the MAC Hardware, but no one would buy it.
Windows exisits because there is no quality commerical competition.
Doug
of COURSE it's a gimmick. I challenge any XP user to use both OS's (run 5 apps in XP and see how great they run!) and actually make a conscious decision to run Windows instead of OS X.
I have a 2.8GHZ P4 running XP Pro at work that is junk to use in comparison to my lowest end X machine at home (a 400MHz G3 from 1998 by the way). People don't switch from Macs to PCs very often, so why not give new Mac users the training wheels/security blanket of running Windows on a computer that can run a real OS?
How you PC people didn't make Linux more popular is beyond me. Windows is everywhere, but has that ever made it good?
of COURSE it's a gimmick. I challenge any XP user to use both OS's (run 5 apps in XP and see how great they run!) and actually make a conscious decision to run Windows instead of OS X.
I have a 2.8GHZ P4 running XP Pro at work that is junk to use in comparison to my lowest end X machine at home (a 400MHz G3 from 1998 by the way). People don't switch from Macs to PCs very often, so why not give new Mac users the training wheels/security blanket of running Windows on a computer that can run a real OS?
How you PC people didn't make Linux more popular is beyond me. Windows is everywhere, but has that ever made it good?
years, I have no problem switching from on OS to another, after
the initial learning curve.
I freely switch from my Macintosh laptop to my Windows
desktop and back with no problem. To me, as to many other
experienced users, a computer is simply a tool. It's a hammer, or
a wrench or a drill. I don't complain that the hammer I borrowed
from my neighbor doesn't "feel" right when I pound nails with it.
me at least, the machines have proven relaible, stable, and fun to
use. And, Office for the Mac is terrific. My two Macs, a 4 year old
PowerBook and new iMac Core Duo, are just really fine tools.
Nothing more, but that's plenty good enough.
MS Office on the other hand has made leaps and bounds. It's a standard because it's actually the best (at present) of what it is: an integrated office App. iWork is nice, but not as versatile, and Appleworks just wasn't worth all the conversion of files back and forth with the Office standards.
Vista should become something that either Apple or MS or both decide to run on top of OS X or Linux. Windows is choking on its own lack of innovation. They can't continue to play catch-up, they have to start over. And they just haven't been able to and it's too late to start.
Macintosh almost died because they had NuBus and all this other proprietary hardware. It was too pricey and they lost to cheap PC boxes that ran Windows because THEY HAD TO. Now they don't have to. Cheap PC's can run Linux (in all its flavors) or you can get a Mac Mini. All computers have a lifespan and are replaced. As more and more people replace their machines Windows will dwindle and dwindle. If given a choice why would anyone take a virus-plagued, slow, big, clunky OS on a NEW machine?
There is always some piece of software on another platform that is just what you need.
My Amiga (in the day) was getting there, I miss that. I run MacUAE and VirtualPC on my Mac anyway,
so bring 'em on!
Get PAID $$$ To take online Surveys at:
http://www.m4store.com/Surveys.html
This has me seriously considering a brand-new Mac instead of trolling eBay for an older model.
Okay, so to continue the stupidity, I'd like to look at the old days:
Remember when the reason Macs were superior was because of the chip architecture? Wonder what happened to that.
How about when OS9 was touted as the most stable OS available? Hmm, yet Mac went on to use an OS that co-existed with OS9 (unix) to build their "most stable software ever."
And, finally, some Mac myths that are annoyingly repeated:
"apple invents everything and others steal it." What exactly did they invent? iPod - nope, copied that from several companies. GUI? No, stole that from Xerox. Secure OS? Nope, built that onto Unix. All-in-one computers? Compaq had one first(granted, it was a total failure). I will acknowledge that Apple does great things with the stuff they make, but they usually do well what someone else is already doing.
"Macs can't get viruses" Never say can't. they don't get viruses, yet. Doesn't mean they can't.
"Macs are comparably pirced to a similar PC." Now even easier to disprove. This one was hard to do when the chips were different, but now we can make direct comparisons. Macs are more expensive, period. I buy near top-end when I buy a new computer, yet I don't spend near what a Mac would cost.
"Only Mac uses the highest quality parts." Yes, Macs are high quality parts, many they make themselves. But so is my Dell. In fact, I know my Dell ismade of the best parts available, regardless of manufacturer. (This obviously doesn't apply to the bargain-basement-as-see-on-tv Dells or other brands. But, how many of us on CNET are buying those anyway?)
"Designers must use Macs." This one as personally annoying as my home Windows is so much more stable - running the same APPS - than my work Mac. sigh. (In all fairness, we still use OS9 at work, because some of our necessary software doesn't run on OSX.)
Okay, so now it's the Maccies' turn to type in all caps how stupid I am. go ahead, it's all part of the fun.
NOTE: If we all (myself included, if not especially) put as much time into poltical discourse as this pointless and unwinnable OS debate, maybe the world would be a better place. But waht's the fun in that?
available"
>> It was, at the time. OS X is better.
"What exactly did they invent? iPod - nope, copied that from
several companies. GUI? No, stole that from Xerox. Secure OS?
Nope, built that onto Unix. All-in-one computers? Compaq had
one first( granted, it was a total failure)."
>> iPod itself isn't new, but the iPod, iTunes, Music Store
combination was something no one else ever thought of.
>>GUI was not stolen from Xerox, it was purchased/negotiated
from a company who wanted no part of it. Now, MS did steal the
GUI idea from Apple.
>> Secure OS is built using Unix as a base is true. No sense re-
inventng the wheel. But Apple when quite a way beyond what
Unix had at the time.
>> Can a failure be claimed as 'doing it first'?
"In fact, I know my Dell ismade of the best parts available,
regardless of manufacturer"
>> You have a lot of faith in what Dell tells you. Too bad you
still don't have true plug and play in your Dell.
But be happy. You've got your Dell and it does what you want it
to do. I'm happy that I don't have a Dell, nor am I likely to ever
get one.
And that's the way the world turns..........
>> of the chip architecture? Wonder what happened to that.
Was true at the time. But then IBM and Moto got to busy
making chips for xbox, and Apple could not get supply. Much
better funding for Intel and they eventually passed PPC. So
Apple switched. Good thing they are able to do that. MS
could never switch processors. See what happened when Intel
had Itanium? Don't bother improving tech, MS is not interested
in that, only in $$$.
>>How about when OS9 was touted as the most stable OS
>>available? Hmm, yet Mac went on to use an OS that co-
>>existed with OS9 (unix) to build their "most stable software
>>ever."
OS 9 was much more secure than windows 95/98, but not as
stable as NT/2000. OS X is more stable win-anything, and also
more secure.
>>apple invents everything and others steal it." What exactly did
>>they invent? iPod - nope, copied that from several
>>companies. GUI? No, stole that from Xerox. Secure OS? Nope,
>>built that onto Unix. All-in-one computers? Compaq had one
>>first(granted, it was a total failure).
This is basically true, apple does invent practically everything.
You would probably be using DOS right now if not for Apple.
Why would MS bother to do anything if Apple had not done it
first? Mac was nothing like Xerox. That in itself has been
repeated so many times, it's not even funny. Xerox didn't even
have overlapping windows. Xerox had no plans for it. Let me
guess, you were probably championing DOS in those days.
Whatever happened to DOS. Oh, yeah, you still run it as your
shell. Very funny.
>>Macs can't get viruses" Never say can't. they don't get viruses,
>>yet. Doesn't mean they can't. "
Uh, they can't get them until they are written. We are still
waiting... BTW, the ones your 'security companies' dreamed up
really dont' count for anything. Bill sends them checks in the
mail anyhow. Try getting a mac virus in the wild. But, I guess
untile Apple does something as stupid as 'outbreak' etc... then
it's not going to happen. You run windoze, you might as well
be owned.
>>Only Mac uses the highest quality parts." Yes, Macs are high
>>quality parts, many they make themselves. But so is my Dell.
>>In fact, I know my Dell ismade of the best parts available,
>>regardless of manufacturer.
Agree with this one, don't you? But then you compare to a Dell,
and I see you really don't get it after all. Dells are trash
compared to Apples. Apples hold their resale value far better
too, though of course any computer depreciates very quickly, so
it's not a major point, granted. I have had about 20 Macs, never
had a problem with any of them. I have seen nearly that many
DOA Dells at work, and I avoid buying them in the first place.
>>"Designers must use Macs." This one as personally annoying
>>as my home Windows is so much more stable - running the
>>same APPS - than my work Mac. sigh.
yeah, that is annoying. But what do designer preferences have
to do with what you run at home? Are you a designer?
Explain?
Firewire? Check. Mice? Check. GUI? Check (btw, it wasn't stolen, Xerox was given non-voting stock for the GUI, and a lot of the members from the PARC project were already working at Apple at the time anyway.) DVD/CD Burners? Check. Tossing the floppy? Check. Using USB as a standard for input devices? Check. iPod? Most definitely. Though there were other HD based digital players before it, none have ever compared to it.
Macs CAN get viruses. Though, there hasn't been a single one in 5 years for OS X. The "marketshare" excuse windows users use to comfort themselves is BS altogether. Viruses are written for Windows because it's an easy target. It's filled with legacy code and riddled with holes. Internet Explorer itself is riddled with more security holes than any OS has ever been...
"Designers must have macs" is also an unintelligent response from Windows Users. Macs have dominated in this particular arena, always have and always will.
As for PC's being cheaper, you're obviously NOT buying top of the line Dell if you're not paying 2500 plus on the system: http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsdt_600?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
Just as well, they don't tell you the size of HD's on their laptops, nor do they come with built-in webcams, or iLife (which in the PC world would cost about 1 grand or more for similar integration).
Not to mention Virus definition subscriptions and the cost for any worthwhile software is multiple times more on a Windows machine, sorry, it is.
So, no, Dell's do not offer what a Mac does, and yes, they are more expensive.
Okay, so to continue the stupidity, I'd like to look at the old days:
Remember when the reason Macs were superior was because of the chip architecture? Wonder what happened to that.
How about when OS9 was touted as the most stable OS available? Hmm, yet Mac went on to use an OS that co-existed with OS9 (unix) to build their "most stable software ever."
And, finally, some Mac myths that are annoyingly repeated:
"apple invents everything and others steal it." What exactly did they invent? iPod - nope, copied that from several companies. GUI? No, stole that from Xerox. Secure OS? Nope, built that onto Unix. All-in-one computers? Compaq had one first(granted, it was a total failure). I will acknowledge that Apple does great things with the stuff they make, but they usually do well what someone else is already doing.
"Macs can't get viruses" Never say can't. they don't get viruses, yet. Doesn't mean they can't.
"Macs are comparably pirced to a similar PC." Now even easier to disprove. This one was hard to do when the chips were different, but now we can make direct comparisons. Macs are more expensive, period. I buy near top-end when I buy a new computer, yet I don't spend near what a Mac would cost.
"Only Mac uses the highest quality parts." Yes, Macs are high quality parts, many they make themselves. But so is my Dell. In fact, I know my Dell ismade of the best parts available, regardless of manufacturer. (This obviously doesn't apply to the bargain-basement-as-see-on-tv Dells or other brands. But, how many of us on CNET are buying those anyway?)
"Designers must use Macs." This one as personally annoying as my home Windows is so much more stable - running the same APPS - than my work Mac. sigh. (In all fairness, we still use OS9 at work, because some of our necessary software doesn't run on OSX.)
Okay, so now it's the Maccies' turn to type in all caps how stupid I am. go ahead, it's all part of the fun.
NOTE: If we all (myself included, if not especially) put as much time into poltical discourse as this pointless and unwinnable OS debate, maybe the world would be a better place. But waht's the fun in that?
By the way, another common myth has Apple as the first PC. Three personal computers were introduced in 1977, Apple was simply the most successful.
- Good Article. Bad Title.
- by open-mind April 10, 2006 4:47 PM PDT
- Boot Camp is a strategy, not a gimmick.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 3 of 6 pages (304 Comments)