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
It's a serious, practical and significant productivity feature that has already had substantial financial impact for Apple and will continue to do so, especially as the "MacIntel" line of hardware expands.
The author writes:
>>>
Boot Camp functions as a security blanket for PC users who would wet their beds without their favorite Windows application.
<<<
It's more than an emotional trauma suggested by "wetting beds." A serious Windows user may have thousands of dollars of software running on their Windows computers. Today, the great cross-platform software publishers have never offered a "sidegrade" or "switcher" upgrade program that would let you convert your Adobe software library (for example) to Apple from Windows. In addition to the learning curve and data conversion issues, this has always been the secret barrier to switching. Now you can install those applications on your new MacBook Pro.
And as I understand it, they will run faster than the current crop of Mac applications running under "Rosetta."
sheet for the windows user who cannot live without..." who ever
peed on his or her security blanket?
In the past that you recite, there was very little inside a MacIntosh that wasn't strictly of Apple design or else an Apple custom implementation, and of course the cpu was *never* an Intel x86 cpu. Back in those days, "running Windows" on an x86-hardware-and-software incompatible MacIntosh was most certainly a "gimmick"--chiefly because it didn't work very well. But today?
This is the first time in Apple's history that Windows can run as natively on a Mac as it can a Dell, and that's because the neo Mac is as much an x86 Intel clone as the Dell. And you call that merely a "gimmick"?
I don't--I call it the future of the Apple corporation in terms of its personal computer manufacturing and support. If anything has been turned into a "gimmick," it's re-writing OSX to run on the x86 Intel clone that has become the neo-MacIntosh.
Windows and its plethora of applications are much more at home on the the hardware that runs a MacIntosh MacIntel than is OS X--surely that's plain to see. I mean, in one fell swoop Apple has solved a myriad of software developer problems, hasn't it? Now, software developers need not allocate additional funds of some magnitude in order to "support the Mac" as in "support OSX." Now they can hone their development efforts towards Windows and cover all of the bases, including the MacIntel, can't they? That's the picture you seem simply to not want to see.
Not only will "boot camp" advance from its present beta-software state into a permanent part of *all* future Mac OSX versions (what's gimmicky about that?), but I'll wager that Apple already has plans to support Vista in the same way that it presently supports WinXP.
The real battle in the OS wars hasn't been fought in the hardware arena as much as it's been fought for the hearts and minds of software developers around the world. And that's exactly why Apple's invited Windows into the Mac environment--natively--and permanently. Apple wants to be a hardware player in the present and future Windows markets and to its credit the company seems to understand full well that OSX is not going to suffice to that end. It's the future of the company and you might as well accept it.
Last, it's all well and good say that technically Apple does not "endorse" or "support" Windows, but really, who was it who wrote Boot Camp and made the decision to include it permanently as a part of upcoming OSX versions--who was it who did that if not Apple? When you add Boot Camp into the Intel x86 clone hardware decision Apple has made it becomes impossible to deny the method behind Apple's madness, and in the process to deny the future of the MacIntosh.
Apple Hammer? Microsoft? It doesn't matter, its simply bigger than yours.
You all sound like children.
PC = Personal Computer
PC is not equal to Windows
Second, I am sick and tired of everybody quoting market share,
which is really just a repeat of sales figures. Those numbers are
usless unless the installed base is included. Why? Because the
replenishment rates on Windows machines is MUCH higher. How
many Windows users are still using hardware built in the late
90's? Now take that figure and compare it to the Mac
community. I think you will find a startling difference.
Does Apple hardware cost more? If you are speeking in terms of
inital investment, then yes. After you take lifespan, frequency of
repair/replacement, investment in antivirus/spyware/malware
software, Paying the IT department, downtime costs, etc. the
Mac becomes a far better deal.
Regarding the "Mac user arrogance" I keep hearing about:
It's not arrogance, It's belief. Let me give you an analogy. You
are a carpenter. You always use the same old dull hand saw
every day. A fellow carpenter, who uses a power saw with a new
blade, sees you struggling. He approachs you trying to explain
the merrits of his power saw, not to rub it in, but because he is
trying to show you a better way. You having never used a power
saw, and not knowing anybody who does, take his excitement
and conviction as arrrogance.
Once again: It's not arrogance, It's belief. Belief in the tools that
we use.
Just so you know my perspective on the computer industry,
Every five years or so I go out and buy a Windows machine and
use it exclusively for 1 month. Each time I am elated to return to
my Mac. Most people that do the reverse never go back.
PC = Personal Computer
PC is not equal to Windows
Second, I am sick and tired of everybody quoting market share,
which is really just a repeat of sales figures. Those numbers are
usless unless the installed base is included. Why? Because the
replenishment rates on Windows machines is MUCH higher. How
many Windows users are still using hardware built in the late
90's? Now take that figure and compare it to the Mac
community. I think you will find a startling difference.
Does Apple hardware cost more? If you are speeking in terms of
inital investment, then yes. After you take lifespan, frequency of
repair/replacement, investment in antivirus/spyware/malware
software, Paying the IT department, downtime costs, etc. the
Mac becomes a far better deal.
Regarding the "Mac user arrogance" I keep hearing about:
It's not arrogance, It's belief. Let me give you an analogy. You
are a carpenter. You always use the same old dull hand saw
every day. A fellow carpenter, who uses a power saw with a new
blade, sees you struggling. He approachs you trying to explain
the merrits of his power saw, not to rub it in, but because he is
trying to show you a better way. You having never used a power
saw, and not knowing anybody who does, take his excitement
and conviction as arrrogance.
Once again: It's not arrogance, It's belief. Belief in the tools that
we use.
Just so you know my perspective on the computer industry,
Every five years or so I go out and buy a Windows machine and
use it exclusively for 1 month. Each time I am elated to return to
my Mac. Most people that do the reverse never go back.
"After you take lifespan, frequency of repair/replacement, investment in antivirus/spyware/malware software, Paying the IT department, downtime costs, etc. the Mac becomes a far better deal." - a commonly made point. now back it up. ever noticed that all windows updates are made transparently with no downtime (at most, a restart)? windows defender is already out, negating any need for 3rd party antispyware - most of which are free anyway.
the better analogy is that the Mac user is using his hand saw, which is undoubtedly sexier and produces more "authentic" looking cuts, but refuses to "cheat" with the powersaw which every one else (well, 97 odd percent) is using nowadays, and which "just works". contrary to popular belief, 97 odd percent of the world's computers do "just work" =)
and well, i'm one of those who went Mac (15" G4 Powerbook) and back (Thinkpad T42p) because i just didn't see the value add, and didn't want to waste my time learning and adapting to a new OS with its own set of peculiarities.
my 2 cents.
Not for the general public... at least not any more. To my understanding, PC tends to refer to x86 or "Intel" computers, where 'Mac' refers to PowerPC based systems. It's true that the dictionary won't back that up, but it *is* the way the terminology is used by the masses. It's not the only case either--just look at how irritated true, legitimate 'hackers' get when their name is used to describe the illegal activities of 'crackers,' all because the media settled for the first name they were handed.
Oh, and as for the Windows/Mac debate? Personally, my vote lies with Linux. (I had to put that in somewhere.)
Not for the general public... at least not any more. To my understanding, PC tends to refer to x86 or "Intel" computers, where 'Mac' refers to PowerPC based systems. It's true that the dictionary won't back that up, but it *is* the way the terminology is used by the masses. It's not the only case either--just look at how irritated true, legitimate 'hackers' get when their name is used to describe the illegal activities of 'crackers,' all because the media settled for the first name they were handed.
Oh, and as for the Windows/Mac debate? Personally, my vote lies with Linux. (I had to put that in somewhere.)
And just drop this MAC > Windows and Windows > MAC. There are always alternatives for people, different strokes for different folks. They both are suitable for people, otherwise they would have tried the other platform a long time ago and stuck with it and become an arrogant fan-boy... so stop trying to impose logic and conform people.
everyone can grasp it. I've been arguing with both Mac purists and
Windows loyalists, stating this opinion since last Friday, and both
sides looked at me like I had horns growing out of my head.
People seem to forget that this has been the way the software
industry has gotten marketshare since the beginning. Excel only
took off, AFTER allowing people to bring in Lotus 1.2.3. files., etc.
Why is it that Mac users feel the need to make these sorts of unnecessary and unwarranted condescending comments? If Macs didn't suck, people would buy them.
What a jack*ss.
Don't need to worry about firewalls, eh? If you're so confident, why don't you publish your public IP address for all the world to see?
Additionally, what about various linux/BSD distributions? Why hasn't anyone mentioned them? Not only do they have any and all advantages already mentioned (except perhaps for certain proprietary software products that have been duplicated in functionality), they possess more. For instance, linux operating systems rely on open source code, meaning that it is not only possible to know exactly what is happening in your computer at any given moment, an individual can fix and customize their operating system at will. OS X comes close to this by modeling itself after Unix, but in the end its code is closed and proprietary. Windows, of course, is closed source too.
Basically, whenever Windows zealots go up against Mac fanatics, they show their closed-mindedness by completely forgetting that other, non-Windows or Mac operating systems might exist. Everyone should consider this and seriously try all three (or four? or five?) major operating system types before passing personal (yes, please note the "personal") judgement. I have tried Windows, used Mac OSes at times, attempted to use openBSD, and in the end, I am using what I like best: linux. But don't let me tell you you're wrong or that you're an idiot. I just like linux, and you can use Mac/Windows/Unix/CBOS or whatever you like. I will insist on proper security, however. Use a firewall and update frequently.
Both of Apple's OS and Hardware are superior to MS' OS and any PC maker out there.
The only reason that I own a PC is price, price, price. I have a top of the line PC and for the price I paid for I'd rate a mini-mac with a memory/HD upgrade.
It's like my car, I'd love to have a Mercedes Benz but I can only afford a Ford.
Just because Windows now works on a Mac, it still doesn't mean I can afford a Mac.
just like Mercedes isn't. Dell, Gateway, HP, etc need consumers
such as yourself because their margins are so slim they need to
make it up in volume. Apple doesn't need that volume.
And you say you have a "top of the line PC" but you can only afford
a Mini, care to share some specs with us?
wrote a 500 word article ?? Retarded man. They pay you by the
words ?
Apparently, this topic isn't as "obvious" as you seem to think it is, considering the sheer amount of discussion...
WordPerfect. I use to use it (still do through classic) Version 3.5e on my current Macs.
I'd loove to be able to run it again on my Mac.
Mac or Windows, I don't care. Both are lovely.
What annoys the heck out of me is how both sides are as stubborn as mules, and try to hide their own arrogance, ignorance, self-righteousness and know-it-all attitudes behind proclamations of these traits in those who hold opposing views.
Like a particular OS? Fine. Want to try and sway those who like a different OS? Make an attempt to do so without unwarranted, unsubstantiated personal attacks, or keep your bloody opinion to yourself.
Their are plenty of fanboy cults on both sides which would welcome a fellow fanboy's mindless repetition of cliches, long-since-debunked myth and supposedly tech-savvy gibberish. The fact is, the only thing you're going to accomplish by spouting such nonsense to the "opposition" is a needless contribution to an already moronic flame-war.
"Are you sure Windows is a tool, and not the fanboys?" -- Oooh, so remarkably sarcastic. We just all wish we could spout grandios-sounding, psuedo-intellectual bits of idiocy like you, buddy.
"I'm so sick of Apple arrogance. Why don't you grow up and geta life?" -- Take your own advice, dude. You're the one rushing to the defense of a collection of 1's and 0's.
Those here who actually make an attempt to debate their point (which means they actually HAVE a point, which is rather unusual in and of itself) using fact and logic and civilized language get lost in the sea of bloodthirsty idiots, all too ready to shoot down any bit of reason with a tired one-liner ("Mac's don't get viruses because not enough people use them for virus-writers to consider them worthwhile targets" -- how many virus programmers do you know? And when's the last time they cared what their target was?). Trying to be objective only means you have to field unwarranted attacks from both camps.
Dare I say this aloud? If "discussions" like this one are any indication, neither Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs will have to worry about losing money anytime soom. There's enough blind faith and creepily emotional attachment here to keep both OS lines in busines for decades to come.
you ask me. Usually the debate ends up being unproductive and
silly. There is a lot of name calling and irrational arguing. I just
recently started reading this board and this debate is actually a
little surprising to me. I had no idea that people were so
emotional about their choice of computers. Basically, brand
loyalty is kind of silly. Change should be an option. Too many
people who post here are stuck.
I use Apple at Home, Windows at work, and windows when i was
in school. I bought an apple because I wasn't afraid to try
something different. I kept buying Apple computers because
they were a good fit for me. I bought a Dell for my mom becaue
that was what was best for her at that moment in time. If I buy
her another in the near future, I will buy her a Mac because that
is what will fit her needs currently. (I am not always around to fix
and troubleshoot and my experience with current macs leads me
to believe that she will have fewer problems than she does with
her Dell.)
My choice of OS is a matter of opinion and taste. When I feel that
a windows product is better for me I will get that. At the moment
it is not a better choice for me. I like the software and
functionality I get with my Mac. The only program that I regret
not having available is Access. Other than that, my G5 suits me
fine.
Now, of my friends who are novice computer users, most of my
requests for help come from PC users and their requests are
relatively more serious. They want to figure out how to make
their computers run faster or they want to figure out if some
problem is a bug or a virus. My friends with Macs usually just
want to know what to buy or how to accomplish something. It
doesn't prove anything, but it leads me to believe that I made a
good personal choice. If Vista offers more than Leopard, I MIGHT
consider switching. From what I have read so far, my hopes are
not that high. I think I will use a Mac for a while...
Quite frankly when it comes to geek cult wars, NOTHING said on these boards comes close to the comments that have been said regarding Star Trek vs. Star Wars.
Seriously...people have received death threats because they've dared to suggest the Enterprise could take out the Death Star. Hehe, funny stuff.
Anyways, thanks for sinking to our level N Sherman.
As someone else pointed out, this is a double edged sword and Mac users could find that if they frequently switch to Windows to do stuff, they will discover that it isn't so bad after all and might stick with it permently. Apple could lose as many users as it gains. However, I suspect it will change nothing. Mac people love Macs with an almost religious devotion and Windows people cannot see what there is to be gained by switching.
All this arguing over which operating system is best is irrelevent. The best product in any category is not always the best selling. For example, which is the best car you can buy? Mercedes, BMW, Porsche? Which is actually the best-selling car? A Ford? Similarly, which is the best newspaper? Which is the best-selling newspaper? In each case, the best selling product is not necesserily the best, but for some reason it fits the majority of people's needs. It is a combination of features, price, availablility and so on.
The Mac may be better and Mac users may be right when they say it is superior, but that doesn't matter because Windows PCs fullful the majority of people's requirements for whatever reason and this is why it is the best-selling platform.
Products are the best-selling for a reason and Apple needs to look at those reasons. Actually, it knows all too well why Windows PCs are so popular, but it worries about what happened to IBM. Instead of looking at IBM though, perhaps it should look at Microsoft. It hasn't done too badly as a software company and Bill Gates is reckoned to be the richest man in the world. If Apple released its cast iron grip on the hardware/software and produced an operating system that ran on anything, like Windows does, a lot more people would be tempted to switch. Just look at the rise in popularity of Linux.
I frequently curse my Windows PC when it goes wrong or doesn't do what it should, but when I next buy a computer it probably won't be a Mac no matter how good the Mac OS is. It simply fulfills most of my needs.
The problem is with this very old analogy. In terms of automobiles, the Kia can travel the same roads and highways that the Mercedes can travel, can't it? This is where this OSX-Windows analogy breaks down.
OSX, and most especially x86 OSX, simply cannot take the user down the same highways and byways that Windows can. Apple itself, specifically as illustrated by the hardware inside each and every Mac model ever made, also cannot take the user down the same highways and byways that the larger x86 hardware market offers.
Mac proponents talk about OSX specifically and exclusively, you'll notice, as if applications written to run on a given operating system were unimportant. Indeed, Charles calls applications written to run on Windows but not on the Mac merely "security blankets" and thus marginalizes one of the strongest Windows advantages over any Mac OS ever written. Really, in terms of OS developer support, the truth now is that OSX has become the "security blanket" for the MacIntel purchaser at it is the *only thing* inside a MacIntel that is not x86-industry generic.
I am frankly weary beyond belief in hearing that any given OS exists as an island and a force unto itself, because that simply isn't true. The true measure of any OS can be found in the abundance of software developer support it garners, and by this measure x86 OSX places dead last at the moment.
Let's also look at the hardware in the MacIntel for a moment. Can a person pick and choose his own hardware, build his x86 Mac, and then run the OS of his choice on it? Nope, nope, and nope, and therein lies the difference between the MacIntel and the rest of the x86 hardware market at large. I haven't bought an OEM-made machine in ten years, but instead have built my own machines by hand, cherry-picking my components carefully, and running Windows on all of them. Why Windows? Because Windows, out of all currently available OSes, supports the widest latitude of hardware, and offers the widest latitude of application support. This level of product choice and sophistication simply isn't available with a MacIntel, or offered by any Mac OS, for any price.
When you consider that the great choice and variety of hardware and software that Windows supports simply isn't supported by any Mac OS ever written, you can see why 97-98 people out of every 100 people in the world don't buy a Mac when they buy a personal computer. It's elementary, it really is.
I completely agree, but it raises another question. Would Mac be as stable and such if Apple loses control of the hardware? How much of the operating systems good qualities derive from being built for ver specific hardware configurations.
Look at a similar industry: electronic gaming. copmuter based video games are often superior in graphics and add-ons (among other things), yet consoles are immensely popular. Part of the reason for the popularity of games on the Playstation and XBox and such is that when you buy the game, you know it will work - because the designer of the game had the exact same hardware specs as you have. The same games n computers work at varying levels, because no two computers (at least in the Windows world) are the same in performance.
If Apple loosens their hold on the hardware, will they sacrifice soemthing in their software performance? to take the idea further, could the huge variety of hardware configurations contribute to the major bad reputation Windows has?
- When can I run MacOS-X on my PC?
- by awaybbl April 11, 2006 5:13 AM PDT
- While the Boot Camp allows folks who buy a MacTel box the ability to switch between MS and Mac, when will there be a version for those of us who want to run MacOS-X on our existing WinTel machines?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- No
- by Earl Benser April 11, 2006 5:30 AM PDT
- nt
- Like this
-
- You can Run OSX on your PC now
- by jabbotts April 11, 2006 8:56 AM PDT
- It's called Linux or FreeBSD. There are a bunch of X windows managers that look exactly like OSX. Mind you, an Apple release of OSX for PC would drive Billy-soft's Winblows into the ground
- Like this
-
- Ah sir, what's the point?
- by benjiernmd April 11, 2006 8:59 AM PDT
- Why waste your money, time and energy on a premium jet fuel just
- Like this
-
- The real way to run a switch campaign
- by shaunkanak April 11, 2006 9:19 AM PDT
- Apple has already factored in their investment into their OS development based current sales and reasonable predictions so this suggestion would have little cost to them and could reap huge returns.
- Like this
-
Showing 4 of 6 pages (304 Comments)so you can use it on an aged and faltering/unreliable automobile?
Buy the cheapest Mac, which in this case is a Mac mini Core solo
and then I will tell you how you can run Mac OS X and Windows side
by side. I have tried everything there is to try, from Soft Windows
though Virtual PC to Guest PC. I tell you now, IT IS GREAT! You just
can't let it slip away!
If they really want to storm the Windows marketplace and take some serious marketshare they should sell a basic version of OS X with a dual boot tool for current PC owners. If they would do this before Vista is released and price it around $100 to $200 then they could probably grab a big chunk of the market - especially those who are frustrated with waiting for the next big release. That way windows users could try OS X with little capital risk. When I said basic, I meant give em the stuff they need (web browser, etc) but save the good stuff and the latest version for the actual Mac boxes.
Heck, I'd shell out a $100 to try out a recent copy OS X on my Pentium 4 but I'm not willing to buy a Mac and a copy of WinXP just to see if I like it.