April 7, 2006 2:42 PM PDT

Macs do Windows with no streaks, tests show

Despite Apple Computer's historic disdain for Microsoft's Windows operating system, Apple's Boot Camp software lets Windows applications run just as well on a Mac as they do on a PC, performance tests confirm.

According to tests carried out by CNET product reviewers, a MacBook Pro and iMac running Intel's Core Duo processor and Windows XP delivers equal performance to similarly configured PCs designed to run Windows. On Wednesday, Apple released a beta version of Boot Camp, an application that lets Mac users run the Windows XP operating system on their Macs.

Complete coverage
Windows on a Mac
Will Boot Camp bring more
people over to Apple's side?

While the results may seem obvious given that the systems had similar configurations, they help answer some of the questions raised by consumers or businesses thinking about running Windows on a Mac when Apple releases a new operating system with Boot Camp later this year.

Apple wants Windows users to fall in love with the Mac OS, and the best way to do that is to remove any objections to a dual-boot Mac, said Sam Bhavnani, an analyst at Current Analysis. If an Apple system running Windows wasn't as good as a comparable Windows system from another PC vendor, some people wouldn't want to take the plunge, he said.

CNET tested a notebook from Acer against a MacBook Pro. The systems had nearly identical configurations, except that the Acer notebook used slightly slower memory--DDR2 memory running at 533MHz to the MacBook's DDR2 667MHz. Performance was nearly identical for several popular applications or tasks, such as Photoshop, iTunes and DivX encoding. Similar results were recorded when an iMac running Boot Camp was tested against Dell and Hewlett-Packard desktops.

One area where the Windows Mac suffered compared with the Acer system was on tests with the "Doom 3" video game. However, the ATI graphics chip used by the Acer system had more memory dedicated to graphics than the one used by the Mac.

Game players are one group of customers thought to be interested in dual-boot Macs, because they tend to like Apple's hardware, but get frustrated by the release of hot games for Windows long before a Mac version is created.

See more CNET content tagged:
Apple Boot Camp, Apple Computer, Apple Macintosh, Intel Core Duo, Apple MacBook

120 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Fast DDR2 in Apple MacBook Pro!
The MacBook Pro has the faster DDR2 and the Acer the slower DDR
memory. CNET needs to vet their reports- first they compare
Photoshop in "Rosetta" emulation, not native, in MacOsX to
Photoshop in XP to tout XP, now they can't even get the specs right!
Posted by dalcorta--2008 (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I agree...
Come on CNET. News.com doesn't offer very reliable News
sometimes...
Posted by AvSRoCkCO1067 (4 comments )
Link Flag
Story has been changed
Sorry folks, I transposed the speeds. We've updated the story.
Posted by Tom Krazit (436 comments )
Link Flag
Fast DDR2 in Apple MacBook Pro!
The MacBook Pro has the faster DDR2 and the Acer the slower DDR
memory. CNET needs to vet their reports- first they compare
Photoshop in "Rosetta" emulation, not native, in MacOsX to
Photoshop in XP to tout XP, now they can't even get the specs right!
Posted by dalcorta--2008 (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I agree...
Come on CNET. News.com doesn't offer very reliable News
sometimes...
Posted by AvSRoCkCO1067 (4 comments )
Link Flag
Story has been changed
Sorry folks, I transposed the speeds. We've updated the story.
Posted by Tom Krazit (436 comments )
Link Flag
Macs are just too expensive...
The hardware is over-priced.
Posted by Stan Johnson (322 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Well That's Intuitive
There's no question you pay a premium for Apple quality and
form factor, and obivously, if you need a cheap solution, you're
going to be looking at a Dell or HP machine.

But they're not "too expensive". It would be like saying BMWs are
overpriced. Sure, there is a percentage that cannot afford them,
and another percentage that can afford them but does not wish
to shell out the extra cash. But people are still going to buy
them, and if you're looking for style and quality, it's the cream of
the crop.

If you think they're overpriced, then you are not in Apple's target
consumer group, so hakuna matata. You and your comment
have nothing to do with Boot Camp or the increased revenue this
will bring Apple (even if it does cross a sort of virtual moral line).
Posted by anassassinoftime (170 comments )
Link Flag
Compared to what???
I agree that in a corporate environment Mac hardware cannot
compete with Windows. However, for the home and SOHO
users, I don't think the same comparison can be made. I paid
$3,000 to $4,000 for Windows machines until the past few years
and even my most recent Dell machines for the home run
$2,000. I recently purchased a 20" Imac and it cost $1,477,
which included the three year warantee, and I would put it up
against any Dell machine I have used. Of course OS X is a lot of
the reason for my satisfaction. After using DOS and Windows for
20+ years, I am enjoying computing again. My thoughts
anyway, John
Posted by John B. Kendrick (20 comments )
Link Flag
Sorry, no, they're not...
They last longer. (you don't have to replace power supplies
nearly as often as on Wintel boxes. You don't have to reformat
nearly as often as on Windows.
Exceptional Displays.
They work better because they're better integrated (Apple makes
both the OS and the hardware - that's a significant design
advantage and it shows - in reliability. They "just work".)
They have more *built-in* features including things such as
Apple's Firewire and the latest wireless technologies among
others.
They come with Best-of-Breed multimedia software bundle -
iLife. they excel at multimedia production AND playback.
It's not PC box vs PC box. Apple does have reliable hardware.
But it's the OS that shines!
Posted by technewsjunkie (1265 comments )
Link Flag
Um......not really
The Acer mentioned in the article above costs between $2300 -
$2500 depending on where you get it. The MacBook Pro is $2500.
The Mac has a built-in camera, better software and better
inetgration. It's essentially a wash.
Posted by Ulath (5 comments )
Link Flag
Hardware the same price ......
It's not that the hard ware is more expensive. If you really look at
what you get, it'll end up being about the same price as a windows
machine. It's the software prices that are more expensive in
professional applications at least and the lack of games that make
the Mac what it has been. Windows on Mac is going to prove to be
a very good thing for Mac users who need windows applications in
some areas of work. It'll also improve the Mac position in computer
sales. I like the idea of windows on Mac!
Posted by kfdan (21 comments )
Link Flag
Too expensive, compared to what?
When I spec'd out new computers a while back for our graphics
department I (which mostly ran on Macs) I included comparable
Dells to satisfy the bean counters requirement for competitive
bids. The twin processor Precision workstations, recommended
by our Dell business rep, were about $900 more than the
2x2ghz PowerMacs. (same amount of ram, and same drives,
etc.).

Apple hasn't really cared about the bottom end of the computer
market, so yes they are too expensive for bargan hunters. But
they aren't when your business depends on quality tools.

We don't buy $500 pcs either.
Posted by rcrusoe (1305 comments )
Link Flag
Mac/Bootcamp Too Expensive & Inconvenient
Thanks to BootCamp, current Windows users can now:

1.)Buy overpriced Mac hardware.

2a.)Buy a full-version of Window XP Home from Amazon.com for $194.99. or

2b.) Buy a full-version of Windows XP Professional from Amazon.com for $284.99.

3.) Enjoy the inconvenience of installing a second operating system themselves.

All so they can run their current applications under their current operating system.
Posted by john55440 (1020 comments )
Link Flag
Macs cost about the same...
...if you compare similar performance, features, and software.

Go to dell.com and cnfigure the equivlent of a Duo Core Mac Mini.
If the Dell is significantly cheaper, then you've left something out.
Compare to pcconnection.com, since they seem to be offering the
best Mac deals.
Posted by open-mind (1027 comments )
Link Flag
Windows is Over Rated - I pay more for OSX and get more for it
I'm a network consultant & I regularly deal with Windows and OS X. You get what you pay for. Details make a big difference. Customers pay for hours of tweeking on their Windows systems when similar tasks are a few clicks on OS X.

Dashboard is cool, but not much of a business advantage.

Spotlight (OS X 10.4+) on the other hand makes google look slow. If you want to find what your looking for, keep it on a mac and use spotlight! It's not just a matter of finding filenames faster, it finds it in filenames, folder, content, and even metadata (like JPG images have encoded EXIF data) and MORE IMPORTANT is the layout of the results. It's all categorized and easy to navigate to find the "kind" of result your looking for (ie file name, file type, date range, you name it).

Wm
Posted by wjanoch (16 comments )
Link Flag
Macs are just too expensive...
The hardware is over-priced.
Posted by Stan Johnson (322 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Well That's Intuitive
There's no question you pay a premium for Apple quality and
form factor, and obivously, if you need a cheap solution, you're
going to be looking at a Dell or HP machine.

But they're not "too expensive". It would be like saying BMWs are
overpriced. Sure, there is a percentage that cannot afford them,
and another percentage that can afford them but does not wish
to shell out the extra cash. But people are still going to buy
them, and if you're looking for style and quality, it's the cream of
the crop.

If you think they're overpriced, then you are not in Apple's target
consumer group, so hakuna matata. You and your comment
have nothing to do with Boot Camp or the increased revenue this
will bring Apple (even if it does cross a sort of virtual moral line).
Posted by anassassinoftime (170 comments )
Link Flag
Compared to what???
I agree that in a corporate environment Mac hardware cannot
compete with Windows. However, for the home and SOHO
users, I don't think the same comparison can be made. I paid
$3,000 to $4,000 for Windows machines until the past few years
and even my most recent Dell machines for the home run
$2,000. I recently purchased a 20" Imac and it cost $1,477,
which included the three year warantee, and I would put it up
against any Dell machine I have used. Of course OS X is a lot of
the reason for my satisfaction. After using DOS and Windows for
20+ years, I am enjoying computing again. My thoughts
anyway, John
Posted by John B. Kendrick (20 comments )
Link Flag
Sorry, no, they're not...
They last longer. (you don't have to replace power supplies
nearly as often as on Wintel boxes. You don't have to reformat
nearly as often as on Windows.
Exceptional Displays.
They work better because they're better integrated (Apple makes
both the OS and the hardware - that's a significant design
advantage and it shows - in reliability. They "just work".)
They have more *built-in* features including things such as
Apple's Firewire and the latest wireless technologies among
others.
They come with Best-of-Breed multimedia software bundle -
iLife. they excel at multimedia production AND playback.
It's not PC box vs PC box. Apple does have reliable hardware.
But it's the OS that shines!
Posted by technewsjunkie (1265 comments )
Link Flag
Um......not really
The Acer mentioned in the article above costs between $2300 -
$2500 depending on where you get it. The MacBook Pro is $2500.
The Mac has a built-in camera, better software and better
inetgration. It's essentially a wash.
Posted by Ulath (5 comments )
Link Flag
Hardware the same price ......
It's not that the hard ware is more expensive. If you really look at
what you get, it'll end up being about the same price as a windows
machine. It's the software prices that are more expensive in
professional applications at least and the lack of games that make
the Mac what it has been. Windows on Mac is going to prove to be
a very good thing for Mac users who need windows applications in
some areas of work. It'll also improve the Mac position in computer
sales. I like the idea of windows on Mac!
Posted by kfdan (21 comments )
Link Flag
Too expensive, compared to what?
When I spec'd out new computers a while back for our graphics
department I (which mostly ran on Macs) I included comparable
Dells to satisfy the bean counters requirement for competitive
bids. The twin processor Precision workstations, recommended
by our Dell business rep, were about $900 more than the
2x2ghz PowerMacs. (same amount of ram, and same drives,
etc.).

Apple hasn't really cared about the bottom end of the computer
market, so yes they are too expensive for bargan hunters. But
they aren't when your business depends on quality tools.

We don't buy $500 pcs either.
Posted by rcrusoe (1305 comments )
Link Flag
Mac/Bootcamp Too Expensive & Inconvenient
Thanks to BootCamp, current Windows users can now:

1.)Buy overpriced Mac hardware.

2a.)Buy a full-version of Window XP Home from Amazon.com for $194.99. or

2b.) Buy a full-version of Windows XP Professional from Amazon.com for $284.99.

3.) Enjoy the inconvenience of installing a second operating system themselves.

All so they can run their current applications under their current operating system.
Posted by john55440 (1020 comments )
Link Flag
Macs cost about the same...
...if you compare similar performance, features, and software.

Go to dell.com and cnfigure the equivlent of a Duo Core Mac Mini.
If the Dell is significantly cheaper, then you've left something out.
Compare to pcconnection.com, since they seem to be offering the
best Mac deals.
Posted by open-mind (1027 comments )
Link Flag
Windows is Over Rated - I pay more for OSX and get more for it
I'm a network consultant & I regularly deal with Windows and OS X. You get what you pay for. Details make a big difference. Customers pay for hours of tweeking on their Windows systems when similar tasks are a few clicks on OS X.

Dashboard is cool, but not much of a business advantage.

Spotlight (OS X 10.4+) on the other hand makes google look slow. If you want to find what your looking for, keep it on a mac and use spotlight! It's not just a matter of finding filenames faster, it finds it in filenames, folder, content, and even metadata (like JPG images have encoded EXIF data) and MORE IMPORTANT is the layout of the results. It's all categorized and easy to navigate to find the "kind" of result your looking for (ie file name, file type, date range, you name it).

Wm
Posted by wjanoch (16 comments )
Link Flag
Hats Off to Apple!
I have to give credit where credit is due and with the announcement of Boot Camp, Apple gets my kudos. If one really ponders the question as to why a user would load Windows on their Mac, it becomes quite apparent that what is really happening here is the hopefully a beginning of the end to the Microsoft upgrade cycle juggernaut as we know it. A person will be able to run legacy Windows (XP) software and not be forced to upgrade to "Vista" anytime soon but instead will be introduced to the latest version Mac OS X, a product Vista aspires to be like. Once users get a taste of Mac OS X will they really want or need "Vista"? Also, if virtualization software makes its way to the Mac, even Boot Camp could be a thing of the past&

It will be very interesting to see what the next 12-18 months has in store but it is definitely a very exciting time to be holding Apple stock... =]

By they way& I currently have a single Windows machine and a Power Mac (PPC based) so I am looking very forward to the day when all I have to look at is one Mac with all my heavily invested Windows and Mac software on it.
Posted by pilaa (253 comments )
Reply Link Flag
And with that, Apple wins
While I do feel Apple has crossed a sort of moral line here (it
attacks my instincts as a Mac user that they now "support"
Windows), this is an excellent move.

The last few lines of your comment are exactly what Apple was
hoping to hear in response to Boot Camp - and I'm sure they'll
be hearing it a lot more from a lot of people as time goes on.

You enjoy working with both operating systems for whatever
various reasons, and now you can own one, stylish Mac that
fulfills both your Mac OS and Windows OS needs.

This really is an amazing trump card that Apple has played -
Windows can do nothing to stop it, and while it has short-term
benefits for them, I bet their analysts are losing sleep over this
news.
Posted by anassassinoftime (170 comments )
Link Flag
windows versus mac?
I like the tone of this message I'm replying to. Boot Camp makes life easier for Mac users who also need to use Windows, plain and simple. Some are claiming Apple will increase sales, and I kind of doubt that will happen in any profoundly substantial way. Rather people who used to have a Mac and a PC (or struggled with Virtual PC) will now just need the one.
Posted by tipper_gore (74 comments )
Link Flag
Hats Off to Apple!
I have to give credit where credit is due and with the announcement of Boot Camp, Apple gets my kudos. If one really ponders the question as to why a user would load Windows on their Mac, it becomes quite apparent that what is really happening here is the hopefully a beginning of the end to the Microsoft upgrade cycle juggernaut as we know it. A person will be able to run legacy Windows (XP) software and not be forced to upgrade to "Vista" anytime soon but instead will be introduced to the latest version Mac OS X, a product Vista aspires to be like. Once users get a taste of Mac OS X will they really want or need "Vista"? Also, if virtualization software makes its way to the Mac, even Boot Camp could be a thing of the past&

It will be very interesting to see what the next 12-18 months has in store but it is definitely a very exciting time to be holding Apple stock... =]

By they way& I currently have a single Windows machine and a Power Mac (PPC based) so I am looking very forward to the day when all I have to look at is one Mac with all my heavily invested Windows and Mac software on it.
Posted by pilaa (253 comments )
Reply Link Flag
And with that, Apple wins
While I do feel Apple has crossed a sort of moral line here (it
attacks my instincts as a Mac user that they now "support"
Windows), this is an excellent move.

The last few lines of your comment are exactly what Apple was
hoping to hear in response to Boot Camp - and I'm sure they'll
be hearing it a lot more from a lot of people as time goes on.

You enjoy working with both operating systems for whatever
various reasons, and now you can own one, stylish Mac that
fulfills both your Mac OS and Windows OS needs.

This really is an amazing trump card that Apple has played -
Windows can do nothing to stop it, and while it has short-term
benefits for them, I bet their analysts are losing sleep over this
news.
Posted by anassassinoftime (170 comments )
Link Flag
windows versus mac?
I like the tone of this message I'm replying to. Boot Camp makes life easier for Mac users who also need to use Windows, plain and simple. Some are claiming Apple will increase sales, and I kind of doubt that will happen in any profoundly substantial way. Rather people who used to have a Mac and a PC (or struggled with Virtual PC) will now just need the one.
Posted by tipper_gore (74 comments )
Link Flag
Apple will release OSX for PC's soon!
Then Apple stock would atleast triple!
Posted by gary85739 (613 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Dream on. *NT*
Dream on man.. dream on..

For today's dream is tomorrow's reality.
Posted by S R (85 comments )
Link Flag
Apple will release OSX for PC's soon!
Then Apple stock would atleast triple!
Posted by gary85739 (613 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Dream on. *NT*
Dream on man.. dream on..

For today's dream is tomorrow's reality.
Posted by S R (85 comments )
Link Flag
Boot Camp now, Run ANY Win32 App within OS X next.
Apple will either license or develop technology to run ANY
windows App in OS X WITHOUT even needing a copy Windows
XP. Boot Camp is just temporary until the next version of OS X
when this could happen. There will be no reason to use Boot
Camp soon because OS X will soon have the ability to run ANY
Windows App native in OSX.

This is just an additional way for Apple to make revenue. Have a
Home and a Professional version of OS X. The Home version is
the same OS X, but the Professional version will let you run your
Windows Apps native for an additional fee.

How would you install Windows software? For example, if a file
has a .exe extension it would allow a Mac owner to install it
using Windows compatible binaries etc... Probably covering a
large part of the software out today designed for Windows. If
this doesn't work with a particular program, then one could then
use Boot Camp. It just makes sense.

Could this be a reason for the Microsoft delay of Vista, as they
think about what they can do to "STOP" Apple without
"STOPPING" actual Windows Applications from working in the
next version of Windows or drastically changing the way
programmers write code for Vista? Of course this is just a
thought...
Posted by Terrence Koonce (14 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Don't you wish.......
nt
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Link Flag
Boot Camp now, Run ANY Win32 App within OS X next.
Apple will either license or develop technology to run ANY
windows App in OS X WITHOUT even needing a copy Windows
XP. Boot Camp is just temporary until the next version of OS X
when this could happen. There will be no reason to use Boot
Camp soon because OS X will soon have the ability to run ANY
Windows App native in OSX.

This is just an additional way for Apple to make revenue. Have a
Home and a Professional version of OS X. The Home version is
the same OS X, but the Professional version will let you run your
Windows Apps native for an additional fee.

How would you install Windows software? For example, if a file
has a .exe extension it would allow a Mac owner to install it
using Windows compatible binaries etc... Probably covering a
large part of the software out today designed for Windows. If
this doesn't work with a particular program, then one could then
use Boot Camp. It just makes sense.

Could this be a reason for the Microsoft delay of Vista, as they
think about what they can do to "STOP" Apple without
"STOPPING" actual Windows Applications from working in the
next version of Windows or drastically changing the way
programmers write code for Vista? Of course this is just a
thought...
Posted by Terrence Koonce (14 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Don't you wish.......
nt
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Link Flag
But...
Do they have a life after they become obsolete?
Can you set up your 5 year old mac to run a program controling automation or a model train layout?

Thats whats better about windows hardware.
Posted by willpenington (16 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Duh.
It's the same hardware, so what exactly is the difference between an Intel Mac running Windows and a Windows PC? What exactly is a Windows PC by the way, given that PCs also run Linux, or Solaris?

Just because it had Windows at one time, an Intel PC hardware can run your model train layout vs. another Intel PC that didn't ship with Windows?
Posted by Maccess (610 comments )
Link Flag
Windows Hardware????
What a joke. It is not Windows hardware. It is the X86 platform
that many operating systems, like Windows and now Mac run on.
So, since you want to run your model trains later through the
Winows9X, 2000, XP or Vista OS you probably can now.
Posted by ALPICH (51 comments )
Link Flag
Windows Hardware????
What a joke. It is not Windows hardware. It is the X86 platform
that many operating systems, like Windows and now Mac run on.
So, since you want to run your model trains later through the
Winows9X, 2000, XP or Vista OS you probably can now.
Posted by ALPICH (51 comments )
Link Flag
Windows Hardware????
What a joke. It is not Windows hardware. It is the X86 platform
that many operating systems, like Windows and now Mac run on.
So, since you want to run your model trains later through the
Winows9X, 2000, XP or Vista OS you probably can now.
Posted by ALPICH (51 comments )
Link Flag
But...
Do they have a life after they become obsolete?
Can you set up your 5 year old mac to run a program controling automation or a model train layout?

Thats whats better about windows hardware.
Posted by willpenington (16 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Duh.
It's the same hardware, so what exactly is the difference between an Intel Mac running Windows and a Windows PC? What exactly is a Windows PC by the way, given that PCs also run Linux, or Solaris?

Just because it had Windows at one time, an Intel PC hardware can run your model train layout vs. another Intel PC that didn't ship with Windows?
Posted by Maccess (610 comments )
Link Flag
Windows Hardware????
What a joke. It is not Windows hardware. It is the X86 platform
that many operating systems, like Windows and now Mac run on.
So, since you want to run your model trains later through the
Winows9X, 2000, XP or Vista OS you probably can now.
Posted by ALPICH (51 comments )
Link Flag
Windows Hardware????
What a joke. It is not Windows hardware. It is the X86 platform
that many operating systems, like Windows and now Mac run on.
So, since you want to run your model trains later through the
Winows9X, 2000, XP or Vista OS you probably can now.
Posted by ALPICH (51 comments )
Link Flag
Windows Hardware????
What a joke. It is not Windows hardware. It is the X86 platform
that many operating systems, like Windows and now Mac run on.
So, since you want to run your model trains later through the
Winows9X, 2000, XP or Vista OS you probably can now.
Posted by ALPICH (51 comments )
Link Flag
Where's the incentive?
I guess if the Powerbook is cheaper then the Acer, but if it can't outperform the compitition there won't be much insentive to buy Apple.
Posted by Bob Brinkman (556 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Hardware.
Sure there is incentive. If Apple computers can run Windows, then they open themselves up to a Windows market. Now I can consider Apple along with IBM, Dell, etc. when I am making my notebook purchasing decisions and not have to bother with their OS. Apple designs solid hardware.

That said, I won't buy an Apple notebook until their include pointer sticks in place of trackpads. Guess it's IBM for me!
Posted by nhandler (79 comments )
Link Flag
Where's the incentive?
I guess if the Powerbook is cheaper then the Acer, but if it can't outperform the compitition there won't be much insentive to buy Apple.
Posted by Bob Brinkman (556 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Hardware.
Sure there is incentive. If Apple computers can run Windows, then they open themselves up to a Windows market. Now I can consider Apple along with IBM, Dell, etc. when I am making my notebook purchasing decisions and not have to bother with their OS. Apple designs solid hardware.

That said, I won't buy an Apple notebook until their include pointer sticks in place of trackpads. Guess it's IBM for me!
Posted by nhandler (79 comments )
Link Flag
Gates wins again
Didn't he buy $150 million of Apple @ $11 and now people can run
his software on Macs pretty sweet deal
Posted by Dale Sherbourne (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Gates wins again
Didn't he buy $150 million of Apple @ $11 and now people can run
his software on Macs pretty sweet deal
Posted by Dale Sherbourne (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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 genuine.
Posted by CentrOS (126 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Virtualization/emulator
I'm not trying detract from the perfomance, because that was fast, but I doubt if you actually booted in to Windows as opposed to loading it with whatever virtualization software they are using it would load as quickly.

Guess we'll get to see for sure soon won't we?
Posted by Bob Brinkman (556 comments )
Link Flag
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 genuine.
Posted by CentrOS (126 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Virtualization/emulator
I'm not trying detract from the perfomance, because that was fast, but I doubt if you actually booted in to Windows as opposed to loading it with whatever virtualization software they are using it would load as quickly.

Guess we'll get to see for sure soon won't we?
Posted by Bob Brinkman (556 comments )
Link Flag
A small division of M.S. gone.
I guess you can now tell the people at MicroSoft who were
developing the next version of Virtual PC that they need a new job.
No offence but good riddence - Hated Virtual PC - Was a "Real", not
"Virtual", sluggish piece of s**t!
Posted by K.P.C. (227 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You are confused (somewhat)
Dual OS Boot system does not behave anything like virtual OS You are oomparing serial OS with parallel OS. Not the same thing at all. Dual boot does not work for me - but VM will rock.

Granted that small group doesn't have so much to do besides maintain the existing POS. MS already has Virtual - PC just gave it away in fact and so, gee, maybe they need to port it to the Tiger OS. They will drag their feet, but it will get done.
Posted by (9 comments )
Link Flag
A small division of M.S. gone.
I guess you can now tell the people at MicroSoft who were
developing the next version of Virtual PC that they need a new job.
No offence but good riddence - Hated Virtual PC - Was a "Real", not
"Virtual", sluggish piece of s**t!
Posted by K.P.C. (227 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You are confused (somewhat)
Dual OS Boot system does not behave anything like virtual OS You are oomparing serial OS with parallel OS. Not the same thing at all. Dual boot does not work for me - but VM will rock.

Granted that small group doesn't have so much to do besides maintain the existing POS. MS already has Virtual - PC just gave it away in fact and so, gee, maybe they need to port it to the Tiger OS. They will drag their feet, but it will get done.
Posted by (9 comments )
Link Flag
Current Windows User
I have been a die hard Windows guy. Using it in business and at home, I find it does what I need. Lately though, after getting into the itunes/ipod craze I've been looking at the whole Mac thing. We're close to buying a new computer for home and although we've thought of a Mac we figured it wouldn't do everything we need; now that's changed. A mac that can run both OS's will certainly get people to switch over. I'm a typical home and business user, and my next computer will be an Intel Mac, and I will load XP on it as well. I think both os's have benefits to users, and I'm looking forward to it.
Posted by mchekaluk (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Current Windows User
I have been a die hard Windows guy. Using it in business and at home, I find it does what I need. Lately though, after getting into the itunes/ipod craze I've been looking at the whole Mac thing. We're close to buying a new computer for home and although we've thought of a Mac we figured it wouldn't do everything we need; now that's changed. A mac that can run both OS's will certainly get people to switch over. I'm a typical home and business user, and my next computer will be an Intel Mac, and I will load XP on it as well. I think both os's have benefits to users, and I'm looking forward to it.
Posted by mchekaluk (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Current Windows User
I have been a die hard Windows guy. Using it in business and at home, I find it does what I need. Lately though, after getting into the itunes/ipod craze I've been looking at the whole Mac thing. We're close to buying a new computer for home and although we've thought of a Mac we figured it wouldn't do everything we need; now that's changed. A mac that can run both OS's will certainly get people to switch over. I'm a typical home and business user, and my next computer will be an Intel Mac, and I will load XP on it as well. I think both os's have benefits to users, and I'm looking forward to it.
Posted by mchekaluk (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Current Windows User
I have been a die hard Windows guy. Using it in business and at home, I find it does what I need. Lately though, after getting into the itunes/ipod craze I've been looking at the whole Mac thing. We're close to buying a new computer for home and although we've thought of a Mac we figured it wouldn't do everything we need; now that's changed. A mac that can run both OS's will certainly get people to switch over. I'm a typical home and business user, and my next computer will be an Intel Mac, and I will load XP on it as well. I think both os's have benefits to users, and I'm looking forward to it.
Posted by mchekaluk (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Why pay more for a Mac, since they're no faster?
It doesn't seem to make sense to me to purchase a Mac over a standard PC to run Windows software. Why spend the extra money? People are lining up to line Steve Jobs pockets with cash. Apple actually makes more profit per sale than Microsoft, judging on the inflated prices of the systems for similar specs. I don't get it. They're supposed to be the good guys. Someone needs to realize that we don't want to spend fortunes, and make people wildly rich, just to use a computer.
Posted by skeeboe.com (10 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You don't get it...
Boot Camp is not about getting a dedicated Windows user to buy
a Mac just to run Windows on. It's about letting a Mac user run
Windows from time to time because of work requirements or
certain applications that are not available for the Mac. It's also
about making it easier for the person switching from Windows to
Mac OS X. The switcher can continue to use their Windows
applications while they convert everything over. It's about giving
companies a way to run both operating systems on a single
machine. Say the graphic arts department uses Macs for
production work. Those Macs can boot into Windows when there
is need to run Windows specific software, like Net Meeting, for
example.
Posted by lkrupp (1608 comments )
Link Flag
Lining for who?
So you preffer to lining for Gates? Hey! Who cares! Yes, Apple
makes more many per sale, but Microsoft just gives you a DVD a
manual and a cardboard box, you will need a computer to run
windows. And buying cheap is what gets your jobs out of your
country. The cheaper your demand, the harder it gets to find a job
that gives you money to buy a PC. No wonder why you have to
build your systems... just like people in developing countries do.
Posted by rleon (111 comments )
Link Flag
Lining for who?
So you preffer to lining for Gates? Hey! Who cares! Yes, Apple
makes more many per sale, but Microsoft just gives you a DVD a
manual and a cardboard box, you will need a computer to run
windows. And buying cheap is what gets your jobs out of your
country. The cheaper your demand, the harder it gets to find a job
that gives you money to buy a PC. No wonder why you have to
build your systems... just like people in developing countries do.
Posted by rleon (111 comments )
Link Flag
Because they want to run Mac software...
I routinely want/need to run both Windows and Mac software. Now
I have the solutionin one box. If it had come from Dell I probably
would have bought a Dell. It came from Apple so I now have an
Apple.
Posted by Kevin Boggs (25 comments )
Link Flag
Because they want to run Mac software...
I routinely want/need to run both Windows and Mac software. Now
I have the solutionin one box. If it had come from Dell I probably
would have bought a Dell. It came from Apple so I now have an
Apple.
Posted by Kevin Boggs (25 comments )
Link Flag
Good point...Bad point
In a way, you're right. No sense paying more for a Mac if you're
going to run Windows. I don't see the sense in it at all. But I
think Apple's strategy is they're giving Windows users a way to
safely try out Mac-OS without losing their Windows availability.
It's a 'safe' way to expose people to Apple's platform/OS without
pulling them completely away from their Windows security
blanket. Apple probably suspects these people will convert
completely to Mac OS once they have this chance to take a dip in
the Apple pool, while wearing Windows floaties.
Macs aren't really inflated in price. Anyone who has gone from
Windows to Mac will tell you that you really get what you pay for
with a Macintosh. As a Mac convert, I see how cheap Windows
PCs go for, and I now understand WHY they're so cheap. With a
Mac, what you gain in productivity, and overall cost of ownership
more than make up for the premium you pay. I know this from
experience. I used Windows PCs for years, since Windows 3.1.
Finally I tossed Windows and went to Mac (long story as to why).
My productivity sky rocketed, and I was able to take on
additional freelance work as a result. As for cost of ownership,
the Mac is a better built machine, and when coupled with OS-X
it's solid and stable. Not needing upgrades for my more-than-
fast-enough Mac, not needed repairs, not needing anti-virus
and anti-spyware software, having absolutely NO down-time,
you suddenly realize how much money you dump into Windows
PCs over the time you own it. You're just so use to it, you don't
quite realize it. It's like buying a car. You can either get a Dodge
Neon, or a Cadillac SST. Sure, you may say "they both get you
from point A to point B, so why would you pay more for the
Cadillac. And I'm saying..."hey man...it's a Cadillac!" Need I say
more?
Posted by themacdaddy (38 comments )
Link Flag
Good point...Bad point
In a way, you're right. No sense paying more for a Mac if you're
going to run Windows. I don't see the sense in it at all. But I
think Apple's strategy is they're giving Windows users a way to
safely try out Mac-OS without losing their Windows availability.
It's a 'safe' way to expose people to Apple's platform/OS without
pulling them completely away from their Windows security
blanket. Apple probably suspects these people will convert
completely to Mac OS once they have this chance to take a dip in
the Apple pool, while wearing Windows floaties.
Macs aren't really inflated in price. Anyone who has gone from
Windows to Mac will tell you that you really get what you pay for
with a Macintosh. As a Mac convert, I see how cheap Windows
PCs go for, and I now understand WHY they're so cheap. With a
Mac, what you gain in productivity, and overall cost of ownership
more than make up for the premium you pay. I know this from
experience. I used Windows PCs for years, since Windows 3.1.
Finally I tossed Windows and went to Mac (long story as to why).
My productivity sky rocketed, and I was able to take on
additional freelance work as a result. As for cost of ownership,
the Mac is a better built machine, and when coupled with OS-X
it's solid and stable. Not needing upgrades for my more-than-
fast-enough Mac, not needed repairs, not needing anti-virus
and anti-spyware software, having absolutely NO down-time,
you suddenly realize how much money you dump into Windows
PCs over the time you own it. You're just so use to it, you don't
quite realize it. You hit the nail on the head when you ask "why
purchase a mac over a STANDARD PC. The answer is, the Mac is
NOT a standard PC. It's like buying a car. You can either get a
Dodge Neon, or a Cadillac SST. Sure, you may say "they both get
you from point A to point B, so why would you pay more for the
Cadillac. And I'm saying..."hey man...it's a Cadillac!" Need I say
more?
Posted by themacdaddy (38 comments )
Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.