Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Going To Boot Camp

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the sir-yes-sir dept.

An anonymous reader writes "PC World has first impressions of what it's like to run Windows with Boot Camp, the recently announced official dual-boot software for the Intel Macs." From the article: "Back in Windows, I got right down to business and installed a few games to put the graphics and sound support to the test. The quick and dirty verdict on performance? Most impressive. Doom 3 and Far Cry both ran smoothly with high-end graphics options turned on. In both cases, I had to tweak visual settings manually, since the games automatically set themselves to very low settings. Far Cry, for example, autodetected very low settings, but it ran without a hitch when I bumped the resolution up to 1280 by 720, with all visual quality options set to 'High.'"

531 comments

  1. Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is truly a week of firsts.

    Virtualization company Parallels announced a public beta of its Parallels Workstation virtualization product to Intel-based Macs (direct download. Parallels is a quasi-hypervisor-based (with a kernel module) virtual machine solution already shipping for Windows and Linux, and is the first desktop virtualization product to support Intel VT/Vanderpool CPU "partitioning". Once out of beta, It will also be only $50. Parallels also has a long list of officially supported guest OSes, and that's just the ones that are *officially* supported. It will likely run any x86-based OS you throw at it.

    It's *very* fast, and has full support for Intel VT. Using Windows (or any other OS) inside of the environment is almost like using it natively on the hardware. Literally. It is quite amazing. (Here's a video someone made of it with SnapzPro - that is not my site. )This is the solution many people are waiting for; not dual booting - with the exception of things that need native 3D graphics support, of course...but otherwise, Parallels absolutely screams. This won't be novel to people who have already used things like VMware Workstation on other platforms. But to someone like myself, who has been hoping for a virtualization solution since the very second Steve Jobs uttered that Apple was switching to Intel, this, when polished and in its final form, will be something of a holy grail.

    Virtualization will still be a HUGE benefit to people versus the annoyance of dual-booting. There's some overlap, but both technologies have their places.

    Also, for those concerned about running a Windows environment alongside Mac OS X, this is just like the old Virtual PC model (except not horribly slow ;-). It's much less likely to be problematic for the following reasons:

    - The entire environment is "sandboxed", network-wise, within the host OS's networking. Most Windows XP installations will now be behind the integrated software firewall anyway, but this is just another layer of protection: it's essentially like being behind a NAT router.

    - A virtual machine environment, being secondary to the primary environment, is typically only used for targeted tasks, not routinely used for things like web browsing, email, and downloading - the major vectors of infection for much spyware/malware

    - Since the virtual machine's disk is just a file on the host OS's drive, it can be immediately trashed and restored from a known-good pristine backup in seconds

    - If no filesystem sharing is done via the VM between the Windows environment and the host (Mac OS X) environment, there is no[1] way that even severe malware within the Windows environment can cause any damage to the Mac OS X environment

    - If filesystems are shared, e.g., a folder on the Mac side is shared as a drive letter on the Windows side, any malware that alters filesystems could theoretically alter the shared filesystem. If a virus, for example, attempted to delete all files on drives other than C:, that would be affected. But, 1.) Most malware doesn't just arbitrarily delete files, because its goal is to spread itself, and 2.) ONLY files that are shared could even theoretically be affected. Also, Windows malware will typically target Windows OS features and filesystem elements. But if you really are paranoid and want to be safe, you probably wouldn't want to, say, share your entire Mac OS X volume as a drive letter into the PC environment.

    The bottom line is that from a technical and practical usage standpoint, running Windows in a VM is probably the safest possible way to run Windows, and there aren't really any ways, except for very specific ways via the explicit filesystem sharing, that anything that happens in t

    1. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Id be happy if VMWare ESX simply supported EFI.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by tpgp · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is truly a week of firsts.

      It most certainly is!

      Its the first time I've seen so many Macheads get so excited about running windows (or windows applications).

      The biggest turnaround in groupthink since.... well... the switch to intel ;-)

      --
      My pics.
    3. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by SeeMyNuts! · · Score: 5, Informative


      Virtualization is more significant in the long term, because it allows Windows to truly become a legacy system hosted on Mac OS, Linux, or Solaris. This way, the infrastructure can be UNIX based while people still using Outlook can avoid gutting and relearning their workflows. Another huge benefit is that the image files can be backed up easily, and malware attacks are mitigated simply by replacing the image!

    4. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, you've been pimping that software too much. Buy a slashvertisement like everybody else.

    5. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by SeeMyNuts! · · Score: 1


      One more point: on some systems, the image files grow as the virtual disk usage grows, so those backups don't need to be the size of the entire virtual file system. Even if that isn't the case, the image files compress pretty well, especially if the virtual file system was initialized to all zeros in the data blocks.

    6. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      I don't work for, or have anything do do with, Parallels.

      It's really just quite good.

    7. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Are you actually suggesting that this is even REMOTELY probable?

      That someone will write *Windows malware* that specifically targets a vulnerability that itself would have to be discovered, AND be attackable from within the virtual environment?

      I mean, you actually consider this a security risk that actually has merit? I only even mentioned it because someone else would bring up something ridiculous like that.

    8. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by mccalli · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I'm running it now - install is very fast, runtime very fast. Couple of notes though:
      • Can't access the physical CD
      • No sound

      Other than that though, it's an excellent product. I've been running the Q front-end for Qemu, and used Virtual PC 7 on PPC. This blows them both away. But please can I have a sound card? Pretty please?

      Usenet thread containing my walkthrough comments whilst I was performing the install is here (scroll down the thread a little).

      Cheers,

    9. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      But have you used Virtual PC or VMWare? It seems like exactly the same thing, except cheaper and available on Mac. That's interesting, but those are well established products with good performance vs this new one that is new and untested. So your post looks a lot like advertising because you fail to compare it to the obvious competition.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    10. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Poltras · · Score: 1

      Even more when a couple of vulns have been pointed out by fuzzers for VMware since fall 2005, which is less than 6 months ago :) Long live virtualization, but still don't forget that sandbox is good till it gets out of the sandbox. VM should never ever be considered a security, but much like a barrier with many advantages... and as it gets more popular it will be even more true.

      --
      Of Code And Men
    11. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Yes, I have used Virtual PC under Windows (and Mac), VMware Workstaion on Windows and Linux.

      Indeed, I even said this won't be novel or interesting to people who have used VMware before.

      But yes, the keys are that it's available on Mac - which is huge - cheap, and is the first desktop virtualization solution to support Intel VT. In general, it's comparable with things like VMware and VPC (Win), albeit in beta and, as such, less polished.

      But that something like this is finally available for Mac OS X on an Apple platform, well, I guess I just see it as a really big deal.

    12. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by fm6 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Jeez, dude, get a life. This is second time you've made a lengthy, breathless post on this subject, and both of them covered pretty much the same ground. I appreciate some of the information you've provided, but you need to get a grip — this is a new product from a semi-major hardware company, not the return of Jesus.

    13. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by xtracto · · Score: 1

      I know this may sound stupid but, one thing I have been expecting from virtualization applications it the ability of "throtling" (spell?) the internal system, something like the [`] key in ZSNES or the [TAB] in SNES9x, I know they are different things in principle but it would be nice to have a similar capability.

      Other capabilites I am waiting for are:
      - Ability to scale the image (something similar to what TightVNC does) so that I can have a 800x600 VM scaled to 2/3
      - High integration with the host OS (copy paste and things like that).
      - Multiple screen emulation

      Anyway, it is great to see that there are lots of players on the virtualization game! Although for my needs I believe something like WINE is better as I do not need total platform emulation to run some applications (of course other people need it to debug/test or other issues).

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    14. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by qiuxing · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not impressed, since even cockroaches make group decisions. ;-)

    15. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Khuffie · · Score: 1

      And at the time it was thought that the attack on Pearl Harbor was impossible. The point is: expect the unexpected. Try to account for everything, even if it seems improbable.

    16. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by FatMacDaddy · · Score: 1

      I've been surprised by this, too, thought it seems like I'm seeing more Windows guys being excited for me, like "Wow, now you can finally run Windows." Yeah, like I ever wanted to in the first place (though I realize there are some who do). I admit getting access to all the PC games makes it tempting, but not tempting enough to have to use XP. Even if I put the games my Mac, I'd feel like I'd have to disconnect from the internet every time I played to keep my machine from getting owned the second it connected.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    17. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is virtualization vs. emulation. With virtualization, the vast majority of the code is simply executed directly by the CPU, with an extra process that traps (most of) the system calls to ensure they're handled safely. With emulation, the code is interpreted by the emulator, which then does what the code was intended to do. With the latter, you can control speed by changing the speed of the interpreter, with virtualization, the best you can do is either actually slow down the processor, or interrupt the processor as often as possible (back in the DOS days, there was a program called "slomo" that did exactly this, useful for playing old games that expected to run on a 33mhz 386 on a 200mhz pentium ;)

    18. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, VT is really nice for certain applications but it is simply not an answer for games or anything else that requires direct access to hardware. Dual booting is.

    19. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Poltras · · Score: 1
      VMWare have had a couple of vulnerabilities since start. Don't forget that there IS a lot of information exchanged between the fake drivers (those in the guess) and the VM software, which means it is probable that there are some buffer overflows or anything available. Fuzzing is really prolific in those fields :)
      For example, when there is a date/time sync between the guest and the host, the date HAS to be passed someway. With VMWare it is through an undocumented (officially) communication port (much like a mouse coordinates, say). A vuln has been found in the first couple versions of VMWare that used this so that the host could infect the guess. Lately it's been the mouse sync and the network sharing that has been targetted (and successfully broken).

      So yes, it IS possible, and probable that it is going to happen for this software too, as it becomes popular.

      --
      Of Code And Men
    20. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      It's because it's a trojan horse. It will get a ton of Windows kids to buy Macs to dual-boot OS X and Windows, forcing them to see Windows XP and OS X side-by-side (and we know who wins that shootout). Not to mention it sells more Macs. It's good news all around. The "lack of games" argument has just been disintegrated forever.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    21. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by mnemonic_ · · Score: 0

      Offtopic karma whore.

    22. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      What about altering the scheduling priority of the process containing the virtualization software? The UNIX/Linux 'nice' command can do this fairly easily. While this won't slow down the CPU, it can give priority to other processes, so the virtualized OS doesn't eat up the whole system.

    23. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      Throttling isn't two hard. Your hypervisor will have some kind of scheduling algorithm which determines what proportion of the CPU time each OS gets. Scaling the image is relatively easy. Usually you export a virtual (i.e. emulated) video device to each VM when performing virtualization. The results from this (frame buffer output) can be displayed in the 'host' in any way desired. Multiple screen emulation can be done in much the same way.

      Unified copy and paste is harder. You need to have a daemon running on each machine with a shared clipboard. It is possible - VirtualPC for Mac does this with Windows clients (that's emulation, not virtualization, but at this level it doesn't make a difference. In fact, the same mechanism could relatively easily be used to share a clipboard between multiple physical machines). On top of that, it is possible for share folders using SMB/NFS/Whatever.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    24. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by hackstraw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its the first time I've seen so many Macheads get so excited about running windows (or windows applications).

      Yeah, dual booting any PC has not interested me in almost 10 years. Its a PITA, wastes time, etc. It might be of interest if I could put an OS to sleep and maintain its state, but starting fresh multiple times in one day is of no interest to me.

      Am I the only one that found this line interesting? --

      "Back in Windows, I got right down to business and installed a few games..."

    25. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by pi+radians · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its the first time I've seen so many Macheads get so excited about running windows (or windows applications).

      You obviously weren't around 10 years ago for the release of SoftWindows, Virtual PC, RealPC, or OrangeMicro's PCI x86 compatible cards. The only people who are shocked by Apple's actions and Apple users' excitement about Windows compatibility are those who haven't been paying much attention. Heck, Apple even had print ads and a TV commercial showing their systems running both OSs at the same time.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    26. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by plumby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is it really that surprising? When I was last upgrading my laptop (which is my main machine at home), I very nearly went for a Mac. The main thing that made me shy away from that was that one application (a decent design/admin GUI for PostgreSQL) that I use quite a lot was not available, nor were there any decent alternatives to it, on the Mac. Had I been able to boot into Windows to use that one tool (or even better, used it under emulation/virtualisation while still in MacOS), I would almost certainly have ended up with a Mac.

    27. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, I definitely acknowledge that it's possible.

      And any vulnerabilities that are uncovered should absolutely be addressed. As you say, as the product becomes more popular, it will become more of a target.

      I guess what I am asking is this:

      Even given all that, what is the likelihood of someone using, say, Windows under Parallels on Mac OS X, actually somehow getting specific malware that targets Parallels, AND would have the ability to deliver a payload into, specifically, the Mac OS X environment?

      I hope we can both agree that while it's not nonexistent, it's quite low, and would require specific user interaction; i.e., it's not something that, even if it did happen, would happen spontaneously. The confluence of circumstances to bring together a successful attack of that type, to me, is quite rare.

    28. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by rwven · · Score: 2, Funny

      you forgot about the "ridiculous price" argument. :-D

    29. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by lakin · · Score: 1

      The Parallels press release says most intel core duo chipsets support the intel VT. Given that, what kind of speeds should we expect? Is the only difference between this and vmware the speed gained by VT? Can you switch to the guest os as if it were a host os, and play games etc?

      --
      Paul
    30. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by dbrutus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No doubt this 1st beta release is a response to kill any adoption of the "hack" method with attendant community creation. I think that it's very likely that the normal course of events would have seen the beta released later with all hardware drivers already written at least in rough form.

    31. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Its the first time I've seen so many Macheads get so excited about running windows (or windows applications).

      How many are really Macheads and how many are wannabe Macheads, who have been putting off switching until this?

      But then again isn't part of being a nerd the joy of getting the seemingly impossible to happen, no matter what it is.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    32. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Virtualization is really cool.

      But Parallels seems pretty dangerous; I was curious about how it can claim to be a Hypervisor based system but not require restarting after installation. This made no sense to me as a real hypervisor runs underneath all of your full OSs including the so called primary OS (see Xen and The Art Of Virtualization. So I downloaded the linux tarball to see what I could learn about how this amazing new hypervisor works.

      Fortunately for me, the source code to some of the kernel modules was included in the tarball. I have not completely analyzed it, but have found a few things that trouble me pretty deeply. For example:

      Extracted from parallels-2.1.1670-lin/data/drivers/drv_main/ioctl s.c

      <snip>

      if (copy_from_user(&mFunc, arg, sizeof(struct monitor_functions_def_t) * MONFUNC_COUNT))
                break;

      /* setup functions pointers */
      for (i = 0; i < MONFUNC_COUNT; i++)
                param->iData.MonitorFuncs[i] = (monitor_funct_t)mFunc[i].fId;

      /* initialize callbacks */
      vmSetExports(param);

      /* Monitor open */
      if (param->iData.MonitorFuncs[MONFUNC_OPEN]) {
                ret = param->iData.MonitorFuncs[MONFUNC_OPEN](&param->dr vInfo, 0, param);
      }

      </snip>

      This is part of the ioctl() handler for a device created by the drv_main module installed by Parallels workstation.

      Basically, it copies some function pointers in from user space, installs them as event handlers (for what I'm not entirely sure yet),
      then calls one of them! RUNNING AS KERNEL CODE! And it presumably calls the others at some point.

      It is true that prior to this there is a check to ensure some salt matched the value provided at module load, but this seems incredibly dangerous. It is effectively creating a rootkit installation device. Learn the magic salt and own the machine. I was pretty excited about this product until I started digging. Given my interpretation of what I've found I don't think I'll be installing anything from Parallels any time soon.

      As I said, I haven't finished analyzing the code. I could be wrong, but this sure looks bad. If someone from Parallels (or anyone else) would like to convince me that this isn't exceedingly dangerous they are certainly encouraged to try.

    33. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by XMyth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      VMWare does some neat tricks to allow you to drag and drop files from your VM desktop to your host desktop (if it's Windows On Windows at least...haven't tried other configurations).

      I'm sure this isn't happening at the level of integration you were thinking, but it's still a neat trick. Suprised the hell out of me when I first saw it.

    34. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by sidetracked · · Score: 1

      there's actually a quite nice GUI for PostgreSQL it's called Navicat PostgreSQL http://pgsql.navicat.com/
      Maybe a little more research would helped :D

    35. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Poltras · · Score: 1

      It IS low, but should not be overlooked under no circumstances. That's what we call the 9/11 factor :)

      --
      Of Code And Men
    36. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Steve Jobs can't walk on water, but he can certainly walk on ice

    37. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm no Machead, but I'm excited about this too. I'm a web developer who prefers Linux. With this, I can run my preferred OS, while still testing in a multitude of different browsers on Windows and OS X. Hell, I can even set up a different virtual machine for each combination of settings - with JavaScript switched off, with it switched on, with ActiveX off, etc.

    38. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by WinDoze · · Score: 1

      I've heard some people comment on how dual-booting could be the death-knell for many OS X applications, with the rationalization being that developers will assume Mac users can run the Windows version, so why bother with the Windows version at all? I don't really agree with this.

      Near-full-speed virtualization, on the other hand, could lead to exactly this. If I as a developer of both Windows and Mac software know that Mac users can run my Windows software, and near-full-speed (since the CPU is known to Windows), and they don't have to do a cumbersome boot process to do it, why bother writing an OS X version at all? (Previous virtualization software was nowhere near full-speed due to CPU differences.) This is a question I'm struggling with myself, as I do develop a cross-platform application. The OS X version accounts for about 5% of sales, but about 30% of development costs. It'll be tough to justify continuing with it if virtualization is up to the task.

    39. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      There are a couple of arguments against this. First, OS X users won't like using virtualized Windows. Given the choice between a native OS X product and one you have to run via Windows, most OS X users will choose the native version.

      Second, you have to buy a copy of Windows. That costs money. Specialized users might be willing, but the average person (ie the majority of, say, game sales) won't.

      Third, virtualization will never be as fast as native. Nor as nice. Look at X on OS X -- the implementation is VERY good, but I'll choose a native Aqua app over an X one every time.

    40. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by nege · · Score: 1

      Out of pure curiousity what was the name of the app? I have been looking for a good psql design / admin app that isnt web based. I have used Dezign for databases, but I don't think it does any admin functions.

    41. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by fermion · · Score: 1
      I think some Apple users are excited because there has been no way to run a dangerous OS in a sandbox since MS bought VPC. There are a few applications that I would like to run on Windows, but I have never bothered to buy a new VPC for OS X, plus I would probably have to upgrade from NT.

      I don't want to dual boot. I want MS windows on a glob that can be backed up and easily restored when infected. I would be ok with a *nix on a dual boot, but would be nicer just to run that in the background.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    42. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by stekylsha · · Score: 1

      This is what I used to do with VMware under Linux using a W2K as the hosted OS. Using a sparse image and the VMware tools to erase empty space, the resulting disk image was very compressable. With a 10GB disk image and using bzip2, I'd end up with a tarball that would fit on a CD.

      This was great because I did a clean install and tar'ed up the images (VMware spread them over more than one file) and put them on a CD. When I needed a clean system, I just expanded them off the CD and I had a pristine install again.

      I ended up doing this many times as the software we were working with came out with a new version pretty much every other week. Because the old version would *never* uninstall properly and the new version would have some incompatibility with the old version, the pristine copy thing saved me having to reinstall W2K every time we upgraded.

      --
      "There is no spoon." - Neo
      "Spoooon!" - The Tick
    43. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by GlassHeart · · Score: 1

      If it lacks access to common hardware like sound and the CD, then it's not even code complete, much less beta quality. I'm guessing this is meant to ride on the waves of the Boot Camp announcement to gain recognition, but it is certainly a product I will be watching closely.

    44. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by hcob$ · · Score: 1

      Must you continuously be modded informative for a slashvertisement parent post?

      --
      Cliff Claven
      K.E.G. Party Chairman
      Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    45. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      As has already been said, it is very likely to happen if the platform becomes very popular. Period.

      The approach consisting to say that 'it is unlikely so let's forget about it' is probably very very close to the approach that led MS to where they are now in terms of security.

      If there is a vector for attack and enough incentive to exploit it, it will be exploited. You can count on that, no matter how hard it is to do it.

      --
      Write boring code, not shiny code!
    46. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      There is no point trying to illustrate this with already existing holes in VMWare. Just re-read the sentence I bolded out alone. The sheer naïveté in it should strike you right away. If the guy believes this philisophy, his product is as good as swiss cheese: full of holes!

      --
      Write boring code, not shiny code!
    47. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by statusbar · · Score: 1
      Hey! How did you get to mount the DMG file? On the computers here they say "Failed to recognize format" when the Parallels DMG file is double clicked!

      ( the URL i'm loading is http://download.parallels.com/beta/Parallels-2.1.1 658.24-Mac.dmg

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    48. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      I don't know exactly what you're looking for, but I use pgAdmin on windows, freebsd, and osx, and I think it's a pretty nice piece of software.

      http://www.pgadmin.org/

    49. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by statusbar · · Score: 1

      Weird, download via Safari (via different computers) gave me corrupted dmg file, even though the mimetime was right. Download via firefox was good!

      jeff

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    50. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      It's not pgAdmin is it? It has an OSX port, and I actually use it quite frequently. It's gotten to the point where it's pretty much as good on mac as on pc. Early versions were unstable and I actually ended up just using VNC / RDP to use pgAdmin on a windows box most of the time.

      http://www.pgadmin.org/

    51. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Chode2235 · · Score: 1

      But the important question is: Does it run DVDShrink?

    52. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hell yes!

    53. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by multiOSfreak · · Score: 1
      Am I the only one that found this line interesting?

      Not by a long shot. Dual booting sounds really awesome until you have to do it a few times in a short period.

      Still, it can't hurt to have the *ability* to dual boot if the need arises.
      --
      Transistors and Beer!!
    54. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by WinDoze · · Score: 1

      I absolutely agree that given the choice, the user will choose the OS X version. My concern is that users won't be given this choice, especially by smaller development houses, who will see relatively fast virtualization as an excuse to only ship a Windows version of their software.

      As I said, I work in such an environment, and rumblings along these lines have already begun.

    55. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by crbowman · · Score: 1

      Sadly the Xilinx FPGA simulate/synthesize/place/route tools don't run on OSX but thats my prefered work environment. I would love to cary around one laptop where I could do my OSX coding and run my windows FPGA and CAD tools

    56. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      X11 runs natively on OS X.

    57. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seemingly impossible

      Runnning windows on an intel PC isn't exactly rocket sience...

    58. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I think it's likely that those companies are the ones that currently tell Mac users "too bad."

      There might be a few who use the virtualization excuse, but hopefully someone will come along, write an OS X native version of that product and steal their business. A big payoff if the Mac marketshare continues to grow.

    59. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by dangitman · · Score: 1
      I'm running it now - install is very fast, runtime very fast. Couple of notes though: Can't access the physical CD No sound

      Have you tried installing Apple's drivers that came with Bootcamp on your Windows virtual machine? That might solve some of your problems. (but might not)

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    60. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by tfinniga · · Score: 1

      One thing I'm excited about is the possibility of doing something along the lines of X11 support - just change the look & feel of XP windows, and integrate them into the Desktop. That'd be great. I guess we'll have to wait until Leopard to see if the wild speculation pans out. There's been more of that lately.

      --
      Powered by Web3.5 RC 2
    61. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by dougTheRug · · Score: 1

      Which of those products ran hypervisory kernels, or anything like it? I can answer for you: the x86 card.

      And although it may have been usable in 1995, it wasn't usable yesterday. Emulation or dual booting was the only option yesterday. I think the Wisconsin Cocksucker's post is pretty interesting.

    62. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Um, huh?

      Why would a bunch of Windows kids buy Macs?

      I have to tell you the truth: I used to dual-boot between Linux and Windows "just for the games." Eventually I got tired of rebooting back to Linux on my desktop system as more and more minor applications ran in Windows. It is a trojan horse, in a way - but not the way you think. Linux wound up relegated to my server.

      The drive for interoperability could mean the displacement of OS X by Windows for all but specific applications. This could put a crimp on development for OS X.

    63. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by plumby · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Is this new? I did do loads of research when I was looking for the laptop - there were several available, but all were pretty limited, or very buggy, but I hadn't seen this one. I'll download it and give it a go.

    64. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don't forget that the X11 server that comes with Mac OS X features hardware accelerated OpenGL. Linux apps running on Linux under Parallels Workstation on Mac OS X should be able to do hardware accelerated 3D using the Mac OS X X11 server via the bridged ethernet.

      It might even be fast enough to run some 3D accelerated games.

    65. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      Not a troll, just curious: given those figures, how do you justify developing an OS X version from a business point of view?

    66. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by plumby · · Score: 1

      I use the EMS PostgreSQL Manager. It's not free, but personally I find it's well worth the money.

    67. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by dwightk · · Score: 1

      I got access to sound by fiddling around... you want to install the SigmaTel Audio driver.

      --
      Like anyone can even know that
    68. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      The "lack of games" argument has just been disintegrated forever.

      No it hasn't, because rebooting is a pain.

      Being able to dual boot an extra OS can be something that's interesting to try, a way of testing out a new OS, useful if you (rarely) need to run something on that OS, or if you have more than person using a machine. But it is not a way to use a machine in general. It's very awkward to constantly reboot everytime you want to run a particular application or game.

      Judging by some of the comments on recent articles, it seems like I've slipped back 15 years to the days when you only ran one application at a time, and you had to reboot between playing each game.

      Furthermore, even if some types of geeks seem to enjoy managing multiple OSs, this doesn't apply to your average user - and since Macs are supposed to be "easy", this is even more important. Try explaining why they need to boot this other "OS thing" just to play a game.

    69. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by c0rN_g0aT · · Score: 1
      and is the first desktop virtualization product to support Intel VT/Vanderpool CPU "partitioning".


      Uhhhh, I realize that that I am responding to an advertisemnet for Parallels but they were NOT the first to support Intel's VT. Xen was and for extra cool points its open source.

      http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?News ID=4474

      http://www.xensource.com/

    70. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by mccalli · · Score: 1
      Thank you, but I'm curious. There's no hardware device showing as missing a driver in Device Manager - what did you install the driver against?

      Cheers,
      Ian

    71. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by Suddenly_Dead · · Score: 1

      The GP post was talking about Parallels, not Apple's BootCamp.

    72. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by dwightk · · Score: 1

      It was odd for me, I was just poking around looking for anything and saw the one that looked different. Clicking on it revealed that it was SigmaTel... I happened to have read that was the Audio Device Driver, so I installed it... After that, when I went back to the main window, all the "Generic Device Drivers" had names... Not sure what happened.

      Sorry I don't know more about Windows... I could be much more precise if I knew what some of the things I am talking about were called...

      --
      Like anyone can even know that
    73. Re:Dual boot? How about virtualization, too! by bbtom · · Score: 1

      Simple: find a friend in college, get them to log on to the Apple Store website through their college network (alternatively: crack in to a college network and SSH tunnel your HTTP through it or sneak in to a college and use someone's computer). Then order a Mac. You will find the price significantly cheaper in the Apple Higher Education Store than the normal store. With the price difference offered by H.E. discount, there was no price difference for me between buying an MBP or another machine. In fact, it was about £100 cheaper than buying the equivalently-specced Acer machine. Without the discount, Apple are £179 more expensive.

      Windows is such an abysmal OS that I'd almost be happy to pay a £179 a year tax to never have to see it. That means nowhere. Not on my desktop, not on my laptop, not at college, not at work, not on public displays, not in shops, nowhere. £179 a year to not have to use or see Windows. I'd make that back in gained productivity and reduced stress in one week. Apple are asking not £179 a year but £179 (or thereabouts) whenver you replace your computer. That's a damn bargain.

      --
      catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
  2. How many mac users? by tpgp · · Score: 4, Insightful
    How many mac users felt dirty reading the following comments?
    ....preferences page that Boot Camp installs to ensure that XP was set as the default OS.....
    and
    I'd think I was working on a standard Windows PC with a wide-screen monitor. And that's exactly what you'd want from a usable dual-boot system.
    --
    My pics.
    1. Re:How many mac users? by ronanbear · · Score: 1
      I had a shudder but really its not a big deal. Adding this option will suit some people especially when they are using Windows a lot. Most people won't ever use it but its nice to know that its there if for some reason you need to move to Windows on a semi-permanent basis. Making Windows default always leaves the option of ditching OSX (say if company policy required it or you sold the computer secondhand to someone with an allergy to Apples)

      I was really impressed by the way they added an option in the Windows control panel. Its very thorough and shows that they've planned this all along. Gives users control of their options for Linux, OSX, Windows etc. Shame Windows doesn't include it because would be great for Linux users.

      --
      the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
    2. Re:How many mac users? by Otter · · Score: 2, Informative
      I don't understand why people are so excited about booting Windows on Macs. To the degree that one is kept off Macs by the need for Windows-only software, isn't emulation (or better yet, a WINE-like translator) much more useful? If you want to run Windows to the exclusion of MacOS, why buy the Mac at all?

      Or is this just about gaming?

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    3. Re:How many mac users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      there's no way to tab through windows in all applications without a shareware program

      Alt-TAB tabs between programs
      Alt-~ tabs between windows within a program
      CTRL-F4 tabs between all windows

      Personally, I've just mapped CTRL-F4 and Expose to the thumb buttons on my Logitech MX500 mouse, and application switching is simpler than in any other system I've used.

      That's right, you have to move your mouse 3,840 pixels to the left to choose something in the Edit menu.

      Since the menu is at the edge of the screen, there is no chance of "overshooting" the menu (this adheres to "Fitt's Law" - the size of a target on the edge of the screen is essentially infinite). Using pixels to measure mouse distances is useless anyway, since the amount of movement actually required to move the length of the screen should be the same regardless of resolution.

    4. Re:How many mac users? by Queer+Boy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have a friend who uses PCs that went and bought a Mac mini last night just to run Windows on it. The reasoning? Why buy a stank Dell when you can get a fetch Mac.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    5. Re:How many mac users? by lakeesis · · Score: 1

      In many ways it is about gaming - I have macs in the house, and have been confined to mostly console gaming because of it. It was a sacrifice I made when I bought the computers, but it would be nice to have the option.

      In many ways it is also about the multitude of small software pieces that companies of different sizes employ. Many of them only run on Windows, and aren't well suited to a translator environment, which is a barrier if they've considered getting apple machines. For a small buisiness owner, it may be attractive to get apple hardware, and still be able to keep their specialized applications around for when they need them.

      --
      sig: I'm not at home, or busy. please leave new sig after the tone.
    6. Re:How many mac users? by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 2

      Maybe...

      But if the response I have seen is anything to go by, Apple will sell a fair few computers because of Boot Camp. Even in this discussion there are people saying: "Right, I'm getting a Mac" or "Just ordered my first Mac".

      I've been seeing that all day. I'm quite surprised. I expected more whining and more dithering, but a lot of people seem to be jumping at the chance of getting their first Mac.

      Every Mac User knows we have the better desktop OS, it's just that that wasn't quite enough for people with Windows specific needs (primarily games) to make the switch.

      Now there's no reason not to. And it will be a nice surprise for new Mac owners. I bought an iMac Core Duo last week. It is a superb computer and IMHO the finest that Apple has ever made (with the possible exception of the MacBook Pro).

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    7. Re:How many mac users? by Otter · · Score: 1
      In many ways it is also about the multitude of small software pieces that companies of different sizes employ. Many of them only run on Windows, and aren't well suited to a translator environment...

      That's precisely what I don't understand! Why would you prefer to run some vertical application in isolation instead of being able to cut and paste between it and Excel or Mail or Terminal?

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    8. Re:How many mac users? by generic-man · · Score: 1

      AOpen already makes a plosh mini PC for less than the Mac mini. Sure you don't get to be all brisp by saying "Yeh I got an Apple" but the system can be tailored any way you like. If you don't give a slurt about the Mac OS, at least get a PC you can soss yourself. (It even has a power button on the front! Twill!

      --
      For more information, click here.
    9. Re:How many mac users? by iocat · · Score: 1
      So, are they adding a second physical mouse button to the laptops yet? That would be sweet, because while I love Apple hardware, they lost me in the switch from 9 to X. (Not a fan of the OSX GUI at all.)

      I would love to have some alternative when I need to replace my laptop in 2+ years, because I am assuming Lenovo will have destroyed the Think line by then. I just got a T60 and the amount of crap that was preloaded reminded me of a Dell or whatever. I only got 512MB physical RAM and out of the box, only 80MB was free. OMGWTFBBQ.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    10. Re:How many mac users? by wed128 · · Score: 1

      Power buttons? i though only laptops had 'em these days...

    11. Re:How many mac users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, I am Mac user... and we DO NOT have the better desktop OS. Mac OS X is the most overrated piece of shit EVER (but it sure is pretty & shiny).

    12. Re:How many mac users? by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Since the menu is at the edge of the screen, there is no chance of "overshooting" the menu (this adheres to "Fitt's Law" - the size of a target on the edge of the screen is essentially infinite).

      Are you sure you didn't miss the point? It's not that the menu bar is all the way across the screen - it's that the menu bar is all the way over on a different monitor entirely. Working on multiple monitors on a Mac is something of a pain for this reason. This is particularly true with the Mac's propensity to switching to the Finder when you just miss the menu and click the desktop instead.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    13. Re:How many mac users? by douglasq · · Score: 1

      just like Windows propensity for closing the application instead of the document if you click on the wrong close box?

      --
      "Form should follow function...unless it's just plain ugly."
    14. Re:How many mac users? by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on now, that's a kneejerk defense that doesn't even address the point. It's posts like yours that make people hate Mac zealots like they do.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    15. Re:How many mac users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lessons learned: Mac users don't know how to click buttons that are 20 pixels away from each other and look different. Moving thousands of pixels to click a menu bar is better than moving to the top of the current window.

      New Mac product idea: every Mac keyboard should be at least 12 feet long to avoid the risk that someone will press the wrong key.

    16. Re:How many mac users? by douglasq · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm at work and only scanning the posts on this thread, so I may have missed the point. Wasn't my kneejerk reaction in response to a criticism of the Mac interface?

      --
      "Form should follow function...unless it's just plain ugly."
    17. Re:How many mac users? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. It would be nice to have the option to replicate the menu on all monitors. For some applications it's nice not to have it (Aperture for instance). For many it would be nice TO have it.

    18. Re:How many mac users? by hab136 · · Score: 1
      Hi, I am Mac user... and we DO NOT have the better desktop OS. Mac OS X is the most overrated piece of shit EVER (but it sure is pretty & shiny).

      And yet you use it (or claim to). Many people are forced to use Windows at work, but I don't know of many people that are forced to use OS X - they use it out of choice.

    19. Re:How many mac users? by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      Just head down to your nearest game store and ask the clerk what the most popular computer video games are at the moment. Now ask him how many of those have decent Mac ports. That should answer your question.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    20. Re:How many mac users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said World of Warcraft, Warcraft 3, Starcraft, and the Oregon Trail were really popular. w00t pwned

    21. Re:How many mac users? by ObiWanKenblowme · · Score: 1

      Lessons learned: anonymous cowards on /. seem to think they know more about UI design than professionals with the benefit of years of documented experiments. Moving thousands of pixels usually IS significantly easier than moving to the top of the current window, because the current window isn't always in the same space. Familiarize yourself with the term "muscle memory," stop being such a douche, and come back when you have something intelligent to contribute to the conversation.

      --
      Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
    22. Re:How many mac users? by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      Warcraft 3, Starcraft, and the Oregon Trail

      Oh yeah, those three are FLYING off the shelves. Can't remember the last time I turned on MTV and *DIDN'T* hear everyone talking about the mega-hit powerhouse that is "Oregon Trail."

      I'd almost give you WoW, though, if I hadn't said *DECENT* Mac port.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    23. Re:How many mac users? by bommai · · Score: 1

      The AOpen model uses a celeron not a core duo/solo and is not much cheaper. The Mac Mini is a better deal.

    24. Re:How many mac users? by crbowman · · Score: 1

      Sadly the Xilinx FPGA simulate/synthesize/place/route tools don't run on OSX but thats my prefered work environment. I would love to cary around one laptop where I could do my OSX coding and run my windows FPGA and CAD tools

    25. Re:How many mac users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Striffy commentary. I totally skurb your nushin.

    26. Re:How many mac users? by NiteHaqr · · Score: 1

      These words, I do not think that they mean what you think they mean.

      (from dictionary.com)

      stank
      v.

              A past tense of stink.

      fetch1
      v. fetched, fetching, fetches
      v. tr.

            1. To come or go after and take or bring back: The puppy fetched the stick that we had tossed.
            2.
                        1. To cause to come.
                        2. To bring in as a price: fetched a thousand dollars at auction.
                        3. To interest or attract.
            3.
                        1. To draw in (breath); inhale.
                        2. To bring forth (a sigh, for example) with obvious effort.
            4. Informal. To deliver (a blow) by striking; deal.
            5. Nautical. To arrive at; reach: fetched port after a month at sea.

  3. Let me guess... by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...it's just like running Windows XP on any other x86 hardware, but in a bright white box?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Let me guess... by michaeldot · · Score: 2, Funny

      My MacBook Pro is a bright shiny box, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Let me guess... by base_chakra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, Boot Camp is exciting and great, but this article is total fluff. "Firefox downloaded and installed flawlessly." Just the kind of unrelenting journalism I expect from PC World.

    3. Re:Let me guess... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      No. Because you can boot back into OS X. So it's quite different from any other x86 machine, becuase you can't do that on them (OSX86 does not count...it's far behind Apple's updates and doesn't run correctly).

      Windows is just the toy OS I keep installed to play The Sims 2 and Oblivion. I do my real work in OS X.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    4. Re:Let me guess... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yeah, Boot Camp is exciting and great, but this article is total fluff. "Firefox downloaded and installed flawlessly." Just the kind of unrelenting journalism I expect from PC World.

      Here's the funny thing. If I ever load Windows on my Mac, the last thing I'm going to do is use it for anything that has to do with the web, except maybe online gaming. If I want to do e-mail or browse the web, I'll switch back to OS X so I can avoid all the Windows Malware out there.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    5. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So - you did all this 'research' and you failed to notice all the rumors of the intel macs (for like a year in advance?), you didn't notice that Apple has a clearly documented history of introducing major changes ever year, and you are now somehow pissed about the G5?

      Sell it! Buy an iMac Intel or Dell or something, you whiner.

    6. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The iMac G5s are still better than the Intel Macs for most things, especially multimedia work, as all the software runs natively. Why complain about an upgrade that had no real effect on you? The iMac G5s were fast, the new Intel Macs are slightly faster for some things, but slower for others, and all apps will be universal binaries for the lifetime of the machine.

      So, you have a perfectly useful computer - more useful than an Intel one in fact. Why be upset?

    7. Re:Let me guess... by bancho · · Score: 1

      I agree with this sentiment. If I'm using Windows for *anything* on my new core duo iMac it won't be stuff that OS X already does well. It'll be specifically for tasks OS X currently can't do at all (and that list is ever shrinking for me at least). I'm also more a fan of virtualizaion than dual booting but the latter option does let me play some games I've had laying around since my last PC died.

    8. Re:Let me guess... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Hopefully! Because then you have a lot more flexibility than a pure XP user ever had. :-)

      (besides hack jobs to make it boot, more or less illegal)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    9. Re:Let me guess... by inertialmatrix · · Score: 1

      I can completely understand your frustration. However, being the good geek that I know you are, you must have heard that there was a transition going on to Intel hardware. Jobs himself said the transition was beginning and would be well underway within the next 9 months; would you have felt better if instead of one month, the intel imacs came out 5 months after your purchase? Also, knowing that this transition was underway why did you choose to make that investment?

      Apple will not be tailing off support for PowerPC based systems for AT LEAST 3-4 years. And once that happens, you will still be able to use the software you currently own, and by then if support is discontinued your computer may be sufficiently old that any new non-universal software coming out would not run well if at all on your computer anyway. Unlike some of the old Powermac g4's which could be kept alive via upgrades (cpu, pic adaptor cards, etc) your G5 imac and the new Intel imacs can not be upgraded to keep ahead of the constant never-ending march to technological obscurity.

      Back on the subject of PowerPC support. I think that many would agree that Apple users are notorious for keeping, running, and buying software for amazingly old systems. My main system up until last November was a dual 500 mhz G4 Powermac - a system that came out in late 99. Ran the thing for 6 years, and even still it is my second most used computer. Apple knows this full well, and when you consider that their top of the line machines are still PowerPC, and that they will be selling PowerPC systems for likely the rest of 06, I suspect that they will be forced to release PowerPC compatible versions of their software/os for the next 4 years at least. And when you look at companies like Adobe that make the majority of their Mac software income from businesses, they can't afford to stop releasing PowerPC compatible software. Their are still a bunch of design houses using G4's, and the ones that recently made the transition to all new G5 hardware are not going to be making another major hardware purchase to replace all of their current perfectly working systems.

      In summary: Relax.

    10. Re:Let me guess... by SheldonW · · Score: 1
      ...it's just like running Windows XP on any other x86 hardware, but in a bright white box?
      Until I really want to use my computer, then I can switch to OS X. So yeah, it's just like it - only not.
    11. Re:Let me guess... by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      > .it's just like running Windows XP on any other x86 hardware ....only snappier!

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    12. Re:Let me guess... by guet · · Score: 1

      That's the only thing I would use it for - checking websites locally. Much easier than having a PC around just to work around bugs in Windows IE.

      Does anyone know if it's possible to see websites hosted on OS X from inside the parallels virtual machine?

  4. comments from a non-gamer... awesome by macadamia_harold · · Score: 0, Troll

    In both cases, I had to tweak visual settings manually, since the games automatically set themselves to very low settings. Far Cry, for example, autodetected very low settings, but it ran without a hitch when I bumped the resolution up to 1280 by 720

    Has this idiot never played FarCry before? Of course it starts out at a default, low resolution. And of course you can set it higher, if you want.

    I mean, if the game had started out at 1600x1200, he'd be making the inverse of this same "complaint". What a moron.

    --
    Push Button, Receive Bacon
    1. Re:comments from a non-gamer... awesome by Lave · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Has this idiot never played FarCry before? Of course it starts out at a default, low resolution. And of course you can set it higher, if you want.

      Whilst this has nothing to do with the whole windows/os x debate, I didn't want to let this slide.

      I gave up on PC games because of this. I want to sit down and play a game. Not sit down and spend hours fiddling with graphic settings. I hated it when I thought I had got Morrowind running fine, then I would hit a "busy" place, or scene or battle, and it would slow right down, and I would have to go back to the settings page.

      It's a constant nag in your head. "Is this giving me the optimum experience, should I reduce the quality in exchange for frame rate". And it's not fun for me.

      I know people like to tinker. Hell I use Linux daily, and I understand that joy. But fiddling with settings kill's the "imersion" for me. Imagine what Ocarina of Time would have been like if the first time you walked out onto the field of Hyrule, instead of thoughts on the wonderful possibilites stretching out infront of you, the first thing that popped into your head was "Frame rate's taken a hit, lets reduce settings again."

      If a game company can't automatically work out what settings your game should be running at - then they've failed at their job.

      (P.S. If anybody replies that I just need a better computer, then well done, you have a massive e-penis.)

      --
      http://skeptobot.blogspot.com/ - A site for the Renaissance man and woman
    2. Re:comments from a non-gamer... awesome by GauteL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Has this idiot never played FarCry before?"

      Precious.

      First, quite a lot of non-idiots have never played Far Cry.

      Second, most modern games, can (and should) automatically detect graphics settings according to the computer hardware. You are free to change the settings afterwards. The importance of this is easily seen with most modern shooters (or Oblivion), which have obscene amounts of graphics settings. I'm sure Oblivion has around 20 different levers with at least ten options each. Giving a massive 10^20 number of combinations. Some help from the game designers in finding an optimal setting automatically is much appreciated.

      If I wasn't so diplomatic, I'd be tempted to call anyone wanting to waste time testing all combinations a moron.

    3. Re:comments from a non-gamer... awesome by The+New+Stan+Price · · Score: 0

      Why stoop to name calling just because you disagree with someone? Games want to give the player a good first impression. Many games try to detect what your computer is capable of whenever they are first run or installed. These games base their default settings on the results they get from their benchmarking. If a game is unable to do this for some reason, it should probably set the settings too low than too high. Since this hardware is Mac hardware, it is possible that this could throw off the detection mechanism used by these games.

    4. Re:comments from a non-gamer... awesome by IndigoParadox · · Score: 0

      Well, I want to be helpful... Don't take this the wrong way but perhaps you would be more suited to console gaming? PC gaming is really just going to be about adjusting the settings optimally unless you have a top of the line PC. Even then, something better will come out and the developers will write their games to take advantage of that and you'll be back where you started. =O/

      I have a pretty old machine myself, so I just set the settings to as nice-looking as I feel I can without the machine choking. Sometimes I'll hit spots like you described where the frame rate just dies. It's just something I deal with, because I know the developer really couldn't account for my particular system the way they could for a closed, cookie-cutter, console system. It's just a trade-off for the openness and ability to upgrade that PC's have.

      I'm sorry if that wasn't helpful. ._.

    5. Re:comments from a non-gamer... awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the things Vista is bringing that hasn't gotten much hype is DirectX 10, which amoung other things, basically does exactly that for you with very little work needed on the part of the individual game developer.

    6. Re:comments from a non-gamer... awesome by Lave · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the comments, that's interesting, and the biggest selling point to vista to date.

      And yes, I'm a console gamer. I've got a DS, a Gamecube, and when it arrives this week a dreamcast. I sit in front of a pc all day, and when I get home a comfy chair in front of a TV is far more appealing.

      --
      http://skeptobot.blogspot.com/ - A site for the Renaissance man and woman
    7. Re:comments from a non-gamer... awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More specifically:

      It's Intel hardware running EFI instead of a typical BIOS, and Apple's nonstandard drivers.

      Not really anything different from your typical gaming box, save for the driver level.

      FarCry calls DirectX for the vendor and model information from the driver, and if it can't detect it (in this case, probably due to Apple's special drivers for BootCamp, which are based on but not entirely the same as ATI's shipping drivers that FarCry is made to detect), it puts the game on the lowest settings.

  5. Windows? How about Beos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm waiting...

  6. Anxiously awaiting the new towers... by MustardMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know, I wasn't really planning to replace my dual G5 powermac for quite some time, but this might be enough to motivate me to put it up on ebay and get an intel machine when they come out. Every once in a while I get the "hey you gotta try this awesome game" IM from a friend, and being able to fire up windows and give it a shot would sure be nice. I still have no desire to waste space with a second windows box that would only be booted once in a while, but being able to dual boot would be pretty sweet. Plus, with virtualization coming soon (beta already out), there's suddenly a whole lot more reason to upgrade to intel macs.

    1. Re:Anxiously awaiting the new towers... by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      You're gonna hafta wait until this Fall/Winter for Intel to release their Conroe processors.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:Anxiously awaiting the new towers... by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      That's fine, I'll be eligible for another federal student loan by then *G*

    3. Re:Anxiously awaiting the new towers... by Black-Man · · Score: 1

      December is more like it. There is even rumour of a speed bump in the current powermac's. With no Adobe UB, Apple is in no rush with the powermac line.

    4. Re:Anxiously awaiting the new towers... by willutah · · Score: 1

      It's a double-edged sword though -- what will motivate game developers to porta Max OS X native version anymore once they can just tell people to install Windows if they want to play their games? And for that matter, how about any other software developer whose primary platform is Windows?

    5. Re:Anxiously awaiting the new towers... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      If Microsoft starts enforcing things like xbox live, that will certainly do it.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  7. Oblivion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I want to know how it runs oblivion. That is my last switch barrier.

    1. Re:Oblivion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      http://www.dancingrobots.com/2006/04/05/video-obli vion-on-a-mac-laptop-running-rather-well/

    2. Re:Oblivion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Video settings and FPS? I can't watch that video (at work), if that video tells any of that, could someone write it here?

    3. Re:Oblivion? by cavtroop · · Score: 1

      Eh, the video SUCKS. Its all out of focus, and you can't tell at all how the game actually looks. It could be on the lowest resolution with the lowest graphics settings - no way to tell.

    4. Re:Oblivion? by toleraen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the three videos were pretty crappy. Wasn't a FRAPS capture or anything, but a little DV camera at really low res. However, you could see that the gameplay was very very smooth, no slowdown on the spell effects and such. Looks like it was running just fine from what I could tell. They were running on a 2ghz + 2GB ram machine, if you couldn't get to that part.

  8. Re:Slow by MagicM · · Score: 0

    So did Slashdot. See the "Related Stories" section up there?

  9. More info on Boot Camp by gihan_ripper · · Score: 3, Informative

    As the summary states, Boot Camp is there to enable Windows / Mac OS dual booting on an Intel based Mac. It includes a non-destructive partition tool plus the device drivers Windows XP needs to run on the Mac hardware. More info and the download are available from Apple. Though it's not yet officially supported by Apple, a release version should be included in Mac OS X v10.5, "Leopard".

    --
    Phoenix, Boston, Little Rock, see a pattern?
    1. Re:More info on Boot Camp by fm6 · · Score: 0, Troll

      KW!

    2. Re:More info on Boot Camp by Palshife · · Score: 0, Troll

      O RLY?!

      --
      Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
    3. Re:More info on Boot Camp by Octorian · · Score: 1

      Non-destructive partition tool? That I don't have to pay some 3rd party for? Makes me want a PPC version so I can play around with other PPC OSes on my PowerBook.

    4. Re:More info on Boot Camp by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Non-destructive partition tool? That I don't have to pay some 3rd party for?

      I think Madrake Linux included partition magic to do this sort of thing. Not new, but nice to have.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    5. Re:More info on Boot Camp by Octorian · · Score: 1

      But is there a Mandrake for PPC? And can any of those tools resize HFS+ filesystems? Somehow, I think not.

    6. Re:More info on Boot Camp by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      I can't confirm this, because I haven't run the upgrade yet (I don't want to reboot today, at least not until this evening) but another user stated that the 10.4.6 upgrade changes Disk Utility so that it can create non-destructive partitions; I think this would do what you're asking. Total hearsay, but you might want to look into it.

      Also, I believe Yellow Dog has had a utility out for a while that allowed you to create a non-destructive partition on a Mac, for the purpose of running their Linux distro.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    7. Re:More info on Boot Camp by Strog · · Score: 1

      There's HFS+ resizing with the PPC linux distros now. I used a Gentoo livecd to resize my drive on my 1.5Ghz G4 Powerbook and it worked like a champ.

      There was PPC Mandrake (ran it for a while on an old iMac) but seems like they've dropped it after the rename/merge. Perhaps the cooker version is still out there.

  10. Re:Nothing to say... by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Funny

    And yet, you still said it.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  11. *sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay, i bet microsoft is just loving this.

    so much for their main competition.

  12. That reminds me... by clevershark · · Score: 3, Funny

    About 10 years ago I showed a friend my computer (a Mac, at the time) and told him about how, with VirtualPC, I could run Windows on Mac. He didn't know much about tech at the time, so his comment was "so what you're telling me is that you can 'dumb down' your computer so you can use Windows programs?"

    I smirked a little and replied, "Precisely!"

    --

    My sig is too lon

    1. Re:That reminds me... by syousef · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on be pwned by a major corporation because you like their product. Perhaps you should sell Apple Mac advertising space on your forehead.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  13. Computer Boot Camp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear Mr. Dvorak:
    Ann Landers wouldn't print this. I have nowhere else to turn. Have to get the word out. Warn other parents. I must be rambling on. Let me try and explain. It's about my son, Billy. He's always been a good, normal ten year old boy. Well, last spring we sat down after dinner to select summer camp for Billy. We sorted through the camp brochures. There were the usual camps with swimming, canoeing, games, singing by the campfire you know. There were sports camps and specialty camps for weight reduction, music, military camps and camps that specialized in Tibetan knot tying. I tried to talk him into Camp Winnepoopoo. It's where he went last year. (He made an adorable picture out of painted pinto beans and macaroni). Billy would have none of it. Billy pulled a brochure out of his pocket. It was for a COMPUTER CAMP| We should have put our foot down right there, if only we had known. He left three weeks ago. I don't know what's happened. He's changed. I can't explain it. See for yourself. These are some of my little Billy's letters.

    Dear Mom,
    The kids are dorky nerds. The food stinks. The computers are the only good part. We're learning how to program. Late at night is the best time to program, so they let us stay up.
    Love, Billy.

    Dear Mom,
    Camp is O.K. Last night we had pizza in the middle of the night. We all get to choose what we want to drink. I drink Classic Coke. By the way, can you make Szechwan food? I'm getting used to it now. Gotta go, it's time for the flowchart class.
    Love, Billy.

    P.S. This is written on a word processor. Pretty swell, huh? It's spell checked too.

    Dear Mom,
    Don't worry. We do regular camp stuff. We told ghost stories by the glow of the green computer screens. It was real neat. I don't have much of a tan 'cause we don't go outside very often. You can't see the computer screen in the sunlight anyway. That wimp camp I went to last year fed us weird food too. Lay off, Mom. I'm okay, really.
    Love, Billy.

    Dear Mom,
    I'm fine. I'm sleeping enough. I'm eating enough. This is the best camp ever. We scared the counselor with some phony worm code. It was real funny. He got mad and yelled. Frederick says it's okay. Can you send more money? I spent mine on a pocket protector and a box of blank diskettes. I've got to chip in on the phone bill. Did you know that you can talk to people on a computer? Give my regards to Dad.
    Love, Billy.

    Dear Mother,
    Forget the money for the telephone. We've got a way to not pay. Sorry I haven't written. I've been learning a lot. I'm real good at getting onto any computer in the country. It's really easy! I got into the university's in less than fifteen minutes. Frederick did it in five, he's going to show me how. Frederick is my bunk partner. He's really smart. He says that I shouldn't call myself Billy anymore. So, I'm not.
    Signed, William.

    Dear Mother,
    How nice of you to come up on Parents Day. Why'd you get so upset? I haven't gained that much weight. The glasses aren't real. Everybody wears them. I was trying to fit in. Believe me, the tape on them is cool. I thought that you'd be proud of my program. After all, I've made some money on it. A publisher is sending a check for $30,000. Anyway, I've paid for the next six weeks of camp. I won't be home until late August.
    Regards, William.

    Mother,
    Stop treating me like a child. True -- physically I am only ten years old. It was silly of you to try to kidnap me. Do not try again. Remember, I can make your life miserable (i.e. - the bank, credit bureau, and government computers). I am not kidding. O.K.? I won't write again and this is your only warning. The emotions of this interpersonal communication drain me.
    Sincerely, William.

    See what I mean? It's been two weeks since I've heard from my little boy. What can I do, Mr. Dvorak? I know that it's probably too late to save my little Billy. But, if by printing these letters you can save JUST ONE...CHILD from a life of programming, please, I beg of you to do so. Thank you very much.

    Sally Gates, Concerned Parent

    1. Re:Computer Boot Camp by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      At least for me, you have to click on "Read the rest" to get the punchline.

      Great, though.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    2. Re:Computer Boot Camp by Kuscheltier · · Score: 1

      YMMD :D

  14. Question by nickmue · · Score: 1

    I know this sounds like a troll, but would this be able to run Linux, *BSD, or any other x86 OS instead of windows? Just wondering...

    1. Re:Question by BongoBen · · Score: 1

      I was actually wondering this myself. I read that Apple actually updated their firmware to allow WinXP to boot properly. Does this mean that it will be easier to boot linux as well?

      --
      The Dude abides.
    2. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux can already boot natively on x86 Macs.

    3. Re:Question by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      This may sound like a troll too but I think we (PowerPC owners) better start experimenting with PowerPC linuxes and pick a one to run in future.

      You know... When future OS X becomes a shell on windows ;)

  15. Re:Dual Booting is a Far Cry from Doom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, this does look good for Apple, I think I will be going out to buy their latest so I can finally get my Windows games to run properly!

    This is simultaneously the scariest and most awesome thing I've read all day.

  16. That's Just Great!!!!!!!!!! by pedalman · · Score: 3, Funny
    Now we can own a Mac that can display a Sad Mac on a blue background.

    What's next? DLL Hell?

    --
    Friends don't let friends line-dance.
  17. Apple is going to make a killing... by avalys · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To everyone who thinks this is going to be Apple's demise, you are completely wrong. No one buys a Mac for the hardware. Apple blathers on and on about how they're a hardware company, but that's bull. They're a software company, and they make the best desktop operating system on the planet.

    No one is going to buy a Mac now to run Windows on it. They're going to buy a Mac because they've always wanted to try OS X, but they have a few stubborn applications that they need to run on Windows, and until now couldn't justify the risk of switching and losing access to them. People on here would say "Just keep a second computer!", but most people aren't interested in that.

    It is absurd to suggest that Apple is going to die now that people can run Windows on their Mac. The whole point of a Mac is NOT to run Windows. That's why people pay Apple's high prices - for the ability to run OS X. Companies are not going to stop making OS X software just because Apples can run Windows - if people wanted Windows, they would've bought a freaking Dell!

    What this does is make it possible, not convenient, for people to run any Windows applications that they still depend on. I don't understand why people think this means companies will stop porting applications to OS X - no one is going to tolerate dual-booting between OS X and Windows to use any major desktop application.

    The only things that will be affected are utility programs from small companies that don't primarily make software - for instance, I have a GPS unit and Meade Telescope that can both only be updated from Windows. I'd imagine any plans for Mac ports of those utilities are going to be put on hold (I doubt they even existed). That's a little bit annoying, but you have to take the bad with good.

    As for games, Mac gaming is not in an especially robust state at the moment anyway. I really don't care to see it die, I've never played a game on my Mac.

    Take my dad, for instance. He loves to play chess against Fritz 8 and over the net with Playchess.com, which I bought him a few years ago. But it only runs on Windows. He's been wanting to get a Mac when his current computer dies, but until now he wouldn't be able to run his favorite software. He doesn't mind the hassle of dual-booting.

    This will entice a huge population of people who have been teetering on the edge to make the switch. And now every time they reboot into OS X from Windows, or into Windows from OS X, the superiority of OS X will become clear. Even more so as time goes on, when the Windows installation becomes a spyware-infested, bloated piece of crap with fifteen different taskbar icons taking up 30MB of RAM each that starts to pause mysteriously after common tasks, and OS X just keeps humming along.

    I didn't have any plans to upgrade my PowerBook before this, but I'm going to pick up a MacBook Pro this weekend.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought my 20" imac and my p4 powerbook for the hardware. please don't think you speak for everyone

    2. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by BoRegardless · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You noted "That's why people pay Apple's high prices - for the ability to run OS X".

      I was going to buy a Dell M90 loaded = $3500 or so

      MacBook Pro with all options = $3400

      There are memories, false memories & damnable lies...and I think we know which

    3. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by binary+paladin · · Score: 1

      I dunno why I haven't seen anyone comment on this but, I think many of us Mac using web developers should be loving this. Not so much the dual boot, but the virtualization end of this. The ONE app that I've been lacking on a Mac (and when I was running Linux) is IE 6 and soon enough IE 7 (whenever they decide to release it).

      When I was running Linux, CrossOver Office actually did a pretty good job of running IE 6 so long as there was no JavaScript involved. Now I can have IE 6 (as well as the Windows versions of FireFox and Opera) to test. Hell, if this virtualization stuff lets me run Ubuntu or something in another window, I can test all the most common (and not so common) browers from one machine. That's just sweet.

      As soon as a 12" Intel PowerBook is available, I'm buying!

    4. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by nemomty · · Score: 1

      I am sorry, but I disagree. Being an Digital Electronics Engineer, I love apple hardware. And if you could (wich Im not sure) I would buy it just to have Windows XP and Linux dual booting on the gorgeous apple hardware.
      Anyway. I have tried OS X and I just dont like it. I feel it's to dumbed down to appeal to newbies and other non-technical people.
      Being able to use Linux and Windows, has now given me a powerful reason to think about buying a MacBook.

      --
      This is not my sig, I just copied it from somebody else.
    5. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by nsayer · · Score: 1

      The parent is right, for the most part. But I will share my experience. I switched a few years ago (before Panther). I bought my mac with a copy of Virtual PC and a copy of Win2k. That was going to be my "safety net" in the exact same way that a dual-boot configuration with boot camp might be considered a safety net today.

      It was only after I had been up and running for 6 months that I realized that I had really only used Virtual PC seriously for about two weeks before I found all of the native MacOS X apps I needed and wanted to run.

      You can *tell* a switcher he won't miss Windows, but if you can give him a security blanket and let him discover that on his own, so much the better.

      I am, however, somewhat less interested in Boot Camp than in the virtualization stuff that the rumor sites say is coming RSN.

    6. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by legLess · · Score: 2, Informative
      To everyone who thinks this is going to be Apple's demise, you are completely wrong. No one buys a Mac for the hardware.
      I agree with most of your post, but this is flat-out wrong. I bought my G4 aluminum Powerbook for the hardware, period. Sure I like OS X, but I spend 90% of my time in the terminal, and the OS isn't as big a deal. This is true for many Perl developers I know. Sure, OS X is nice, but having Perl running natively on the best hardware available -- that's why we buy these things.
      --
      This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
    7. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by twocents · · Score: 1

      I'm not bashing you, but do you honestly feel that Windows is geared towards technical people and OS X is not? You mentioned Linux...OS X does come out of the box with a nice shell, Java, Perl...I think OS X offers much more to the techie than Windows.

    8. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Moofie · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I feel it's to dumbed down to appeal to newbies and other non-technical people."

      I'm sorry you feel that way. Do you want a hug?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Anyway. I have tried OS X and I just dont like it. I feel it's to dumbed down to appeal to newbies and other non-technical people.

      I go to MIT. I would say that fully half, maybe more, of the computers used by professors and students here are Macs.

      And obviously, these are not hippie artists or non-technical people. They are scientists, engineers, Nobel-prize winning physicists. Hell, a few weeks ago, we had Gilad Bracha (the guy at Sun responsible for maintaining Java) give a guest lecture. He presented the slides with a PowerBook.

      That should tell you something. These are some of the smartest people in the world - they're not buying the Macs for the pretty colors. My friends tell me the situation is the same at other technical colleges.

      Did you ever open up the command line? If you expanded it to fill the screen, you could pretend you were running Linux. Hell, you can even run KDE under Mac OS X if you wanted to. Unless you're tinkering with the OS, there are very few things you can do in Linux that you can't do in OS X.

      But the beauty of OS X is, you don't have to deal with all the hassles of Linux. With OS X, every feature of the OS just works, leaving you with more time to get actual work done, instead of fighting to configure some new software you installed, or resolve a dependency problem.

      Also, Linux on laptops sucks. Power management support, fan control, wireless network support, sleep support, bluetooth, manufacturer-specific keys, none of those work. It may be possible, but it isn't pleasant.

    10. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by MBraynard · · Score: 1

      Can you list, side by side, the specs for both machines?

    11. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Da_Biz · · Score: 1

      To everyone who thinks this is going to be Apple's demise, you are completely wrong. No one buys a Mac for the hardware.

      You are completely wrong to say that "no one" buys a Mac for the hardware. I'm proof of that.

      The first computer I really connected with was a Mac SE (with "SuperDrive") purchased around 1987. After that, I purchased a PowerBook 100 which served me quite well for several years, and which was sold at five years of age to another person. If anything, this is impressive considering the fact that this wasn't considered one of Apple's more robust laptops (or should I say Sony laptop?).

      After that, I didn't feel a burning need to buy another Mac laptop. My employers were providing me with Windows laptops that worked just fine, and why should I spend money on yet another thing prone to breakage and theft?

      Having since returned to school (making a shift from IT systems engineering to nursing), I began to long for the "old days" of relatively trouble-free existence of Mac hardware. For example:

      * Port doors that don't get ripped off or break in strange manners
      * Screen brightness/contrast and volume controls that are actually integrated with the OS, rather than having to use an Fn key to muck with them (or figuring out if Windows or the hardware config is the problem when I can't hear anything).
      * Reliable sleep and hibernate. I have yet to get Windows to reliably return from sleep.

      I just need a laptop that can be a reliable workhorse for school. If I can dual-boot it with Windows, even better for those few moments I could really use it.

      But ultimately, even if Dell or Compaq sold a laptop that was MacOS compatible, I'd still buy my laptop from Apple. I'm not made of money, but am willing to pay more money for reliability.

      (Typing this from my ThinkPad 600x battery destroyer with defective TouchPoint)

    12. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by diamondsw · · Score: 1

      Apple blathers on and on about how they're a hardware company, but that's bull. They're a software company, and they make the best desktop operating system on the planet.

      Just to nitpick - Apple makes its money on hardware, which makes it a hardware company. Apple sells that hardware via its software, which makes it a software company. Both sides are absolutely right from their own viewpoints.

      The soul of the company is definitely in the Mac OS and its descendants, but the hardware is what allows them to pay the bills and offer the tight integration Apple's known for.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    13. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Octorian · · Score: 1

      OSX is, IMHO, really that middle-ground we're always seeking. On one hand, its grandma-friendly. On the other hand, it's techie friendly. Most importantly, though, while every dismisses even acknowledging that people use Linux on the desktop, plenty of people acknowledge that people use Macs on the desktop. So, we can actually get lots of end-user commercial software for the Mac. Yes, even MS Office. Yes, multimedia codecs. Yes, even occasionally other random 3rd party thingies.

      By running OSX, we can have the computer us geeks *want*, as well as the computer we *need* to interoperate a little better. I've actually managed to use a PowerBook as my "work" machine for the past year, and it actually works pretty well for that. (also nice that half of my office uses PowerBooks, even if "corporate IT" is Windows-focused) Though if I were to try Linux, I'd likely have to get Crossover Office, VMware, etc, and *pray* I didn't have to dual-boot the machine often/ever.

      (Oh, and with a laptop, OSX perfectly supports all the hardware that would sometimes be a great challenge in Linux.)

      Then again, today I think my biggest worry is Apple's decision to build a camera into the new MacBook Pro. Considering that many people (myself sometimes included) work in environments were we can't even have camera cell phones on us, I think this will make the MacBook Pro simply an unchoosable option for my next laptop.

    14. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Duds · · Score: 1

      That said, in the UK, cheapest MacBook Pro - $2500.

      equvilent HP laptop - $1400.

    15. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Forbman · · Score: 1

      This is true for many Perl developers I know.

      All 5 of you?

      So why exactly did you buy the Mac? Obviously, the reasons you bought it were more compelling for you than what you spend most of your time doing on your computer. Nothing wrong with that at all.

      Sure, OS X is nice, but having Perl running natively on the best hardware available

      It sounds objective, but it really is subjective. Does your code run faster on the Mac than on a PC (short of any Altivec code)? What about same code on an Intel Linux box?

      Most people don't buy computers to write code.

      When I get around to buying a new computer, it's going to be a Mac. The PCs will be kept around for games or shelf weights or Linux servers. But I have too much perspective over the last 15 years or so of computing and pricing. Bitching about a Mac that costs $200 more than a speced out WinTel box is meaningless when all the other timesinks that seem to come with running a Wintel computer well is factored in.

      People balk at paying $500 for a Dell machine that a couple of years ago or less was a spec'd out high-end monster, *without* the 17" LCD monitor.

    16. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by dbrutus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is Gillette a razor company or a razor blade company. Their customers think they are a razor company and buy their razors. The stockholders know that they are a razor blade company, with razors being sold at a loss to gain volume on their core product, razor cartridges.

      So who is right?

      Apple is a hardware company like Gillette is a razor blade company.

    17. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Zathrus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      was going to buy a Dell M90 loaded = $3500 or so

      MacBook Pro with all options = $3400


      Huh, I get $3600 for the MacBook... or did you forget to include the 3 year warranty that's standard on the Dell M90?

      But even so, you're comparing a 17" laptop with 1920x1200 resolution and an insanely powerful graphics card (Nvidia Quadro FX 2500M w/ 512 MB dedicated memory) to a 15" laptop with 1440x900 resolution and a very powerful graphics card (ATI Mobility 1600 w/ 256 MB dedicated memory). Not to mention the vast raft of other differences between the two. And the Dell is more expensive? Imagine that! I bet you didn't even try to use free Dell coupons that cut the price down, now did you? Hell, I can't even guess what screwed up way you configured the Dell to make such an absurd comparison -- because, unsurprisingly, you didn't give details.

      Hey, let's try for a more fair comparison.
      Base level MacBook Pro: $1999
      Dell Inspiron E1505 upgraded appropriately: $1501 - $450 = $1051 (upgrades: T2400 CPU, XP MCE install CD, remote control, 15.4" WSXGA screen, 512MB single DIMM, 80 GB 5400 rpm HD, 8X DVD/CD DL burner, 3945 Wireless NIC + Bluetooth, ATI Radeon X1400)

      Now the Dell is not a 100% replica of the Apple, but neither is the Apple completely superior to the Dell. This isn't a full list of differences, but it hits the high points:

      Dell advantages: Higher resolution screen (1680x1050), dual layer burner, built in modem, two mouse buttons on the laptop itself, $950 in your pocket. (Yesterday you could've gotten 1 GB of RAM for the same price, but that deal expired)

      Mac advantages: Much more powerful video card, slightly faster RAM (the Dell can take the RAM, they're just being cheap asses), integrated web cam, backlit keyboard, can boot both OS X and XP.

      Again, that's not a full list. There are software differences (which are solved for $1000 for what essentially boiled down to running OS X. I suspect most other people look at it the same way.

    18. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by legLess · · Score: 1
      All 5 of you?
      Oh, now that's funny! The wit, the insight, the maturity displayed in this single, deceptively simple critique is truly devastating. Please, allow me to subscribe to your newsletter, where I may enjoy more of your humor.
      --
      This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
    19. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Zathrus · · Score: 1
      There are software differences (which are solved for $1000 for what essentially boiled down to running OS X. I suspect most other people look at it the same way.

      Damnit, I should've previewed.

      What that originally said was:

      ... (which are solved for <$200) and other hardware differences, but they're pretty minor.

      I just bought a new laptop and while I looked at the Macbooks I couldn't justify spending >$1000 for what essentially...

    20. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      I had a friend who lived next door to me for a while. He was a diehard PC user, but didn't really know a lot about maintenance. His machine was always getting clogged up with viruses, spyware, etc. After about six months or so of coming over to my place to check his email when his machine was indisposed, he went out and bought a iBook. (This was with very little advocacy on my part -- I just honestly said I had no idea how to clear spyware off of a PC or a Mac, because I didn't use a PC and I'd never gotten a virus or spyware on my Mac in more than a decade.)

      For a while he kept the PC set up, but I think about 3-4 months after he got it, the PC's monitor started to get pushed farther and farther back on the desk. Eventually, it got put on the floor. A few months after that it disappeared completely.

      There are a lot of people who are unwilling to switch if it means cutting over 100%, all at once. People want to migrate, and have a fallback position. In my neighbor's case, he had enough cash and his PC was new enough to make the iBook an "experiment." Being able to dual-boot Windows on a Mini, distasteful as I personally find the idea, gives MacOS a 'foot in the door' in places where it might not otherwise get it. Apple gets a hardware sale, and the user gets to basically A/B Windows and Mac OS on the same hardware. My experience has shown that if a person gives Mac a fair shot, they're usually won over. So by giving folks a low-risk way to try Mac, they can let the product (OS X) sell itself on its own merits. It's the ultimate soft sell.

      From that perspective, it's a pretty refreshing way to do business, actually.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    21. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abso-frakking-lutely. This is one of the smartest moves Jobs has ever made.

      Case in point: I'm a 3D graphics artist who uses 3ds max, arguably the most widely-used 3D animation package in the world. 3ds max runs ONLY on Windows, and I have to use it for my daily work. 3ds Max is the #1 reason I use PCs.

      My wife uses Macs for her video editing jobs; Final Cut Studio HD is the "killer app" that she requires.

      Now that Apple is finally getting genuinely fast hardware that's worth the money, our future home computer purchases can ALL be dual-boot Macs, where I can go back and forth from WXP to OSX to use the software that's exclusive to both systems. I could even boot a bunch Intel Macs into WXP, do 3ds max network rendering of animations on them overnight, then edit them the next morning on FCP Studio.

      In the 3D industry, this announcement is HUGE. If you don't believe me, check out the posts at www.cgtalk.com.

      (And, the first person on this thread to bleat the dumbass mantra, "But why would anyone WANT to run Windows on a Macintosh?!" needs to get smacked.)

    22. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      ... if people wanted Windows, they would've bought a freaking Dell!

      Ummm ... I think you just identified about 95% of the computer-buying public (OK, I am exagerating because I am generalizing all Windows boxes as Dells).

      I didn't have any plans to upgrade my PowerBook before this, but I'm going to pick up a MacBook Pro this weekend.

      That's odd. You are already a Mac zealot. What can you possibly gain by being able to run Windows since OSX is so superior? I'm afraid your argument that this will entice a huge population to switch does not hold water. By my estimation, mostly it will entice the relatively small population of existing Mac owners to upgrade so they can run Windows-only games and apps.

      In my mind there are 2 types of mac owners: computer-phobic types and computer-saavy types. The Windows world has those 2 types of people as well, along with a large number of price-sensitive folks, and an even larger number of captive users (those for whom Windows is mandated by their company/parents/school).

      Arguably the tech-phobic types who are running Windows are having a much more unpleasant experience than their Mac counterparts. However, they are most probably chained to Windows due to the availability of Apps or due to the price of the hardware. This group is not going to switch either because they can't afford to buy Macs, or they don't have the technical know-how to install a dual-booted Windows.

      The saavy types (a small percentage of the market - figure 5-10% max) have pretty much chosen their platform. They are gurus and have a great deal invested in customizing, optimizing and otherwise totally bonding with their machines. It is doubtful to me that many of them will switch, though some might buy the Macs to get the cool hardware.

      This leaves the big group in the middle. Most of these are subject to the purchasing whims of the organization that provides them their computer. I simply cannot imagine many companies or schools willing to replace all their perfectly fine PCs with much more pricey Macs, and THEN paying for Windows licenses and putting in all that labor to dual boot and install Windows, and THEN installing all the applications, all just to get back to where they were. Not gonna happen.

      So where does this leave us? I think existing Mac owners are the big beneficiaries here, and will be the biggest buyers. Some percentage of the tech-saavy Windows people will switch, but that is not a large part of the market. IMHO, the vast majority of Windows customers will stay right where they are.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    23. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by filterban · · Score: 1
      I agree with you wholeheartedly. Mac hardware is also very nice (it's so pretty!) but really, it comes down to OS X and the fantastic applications that come with iLife.

      Boot camp, much like the switch to Intel, the switch to OS X, and the previous switch to PowerPC, is not the demise of Apple. It is the beginning of a new era. It was going to happen anyway, it's just now become a good selling point for Apple.

      People will spend 90% of their time in OSX, and use Windows when they absolutely have to. This helps remove the first excuse people use when they buy a Windows PC - "Well, Macs are great, but I need Windows for [work/games/strange utility application]."

      Of course, dual booting is not the ideal solution, but it makes it -possible-. Virtualization, or using something like DarWINE, will eventually be better because people won't have to reboot. But, as of now, it's a fantastic thing for Apple.

      --
      rm -rf /
    24. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think people buying Macs are going to be find a hardware-only comparison very compelling. That's not why they're buying. So let's focus on the last part of the "comparison": I assume by the "software differences", you're referring to the software that comes installed on new Macs, the most significant being the iLife suite. Movie editing, DVD authoring, web creation and photo management for...nothing? Let's not forget Front Row and the remote control hardware compliment. Trying adding that to the bottom line.

    25. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      That's odd. You are already a Mac zealot. What can you possibly gain by being able to run Windows since OSX is so superior?

      Games. Now I can devote a 60GB partition to the toy OS that is Windows, and play video games now and then. Then switch back to OS X and get the real work done.

      The idea of portable Oblivion gaming on a MacBook Pro...come on...you're telling me you don't salivate at the idea? :)

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    26. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by jaypaulw · · Score: 1

      "No one is going to buy a Mac now to run Windows on it."

      I might be buying a Mac to run windows.

    27. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by GreyKnight · · Score: 1
      No one buys a Mac for the hardware.
      Erm...not quite. I bought a Mac-mini because it is a nice, quiet box, that was a decent upgrade from my K6-3/450. The main selling factor wasn't OSX; it was the low noise level, plus the small form factor. I'm running Linux on it almost exclusively. OS X is a nice OS, but for what I use my computer for, there really isn't any compelling reason to use it in preference to Linux.

      I do agree with your point about dual-boot capability enticing people to switch, however; when I started dual-booting Windows/Linux, it didn't take long for me to switch...
    28. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm sick and tired of all of this virus and spyware fud from Mac users against Windows. Windows XP which now comes standard with SP2 includes a software firewall that removes most of the risk of worms. If you keep automatic updates on your system will remain patched and most exploits will be closed. The only way to get viruses and spyware is to surf sites that are less that scruplious. Had your friend not been on a constant search for midget pr0n we'd have a cleaner system. Also not installing and running everything under the sun would also help.

      I will definately have a good laugh once the spyware companies see OSX as mainstream enough to support. Then they will have all of the same problems PCs do.

    29. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by 386spart · · Score: 1

      No one buys a Mac for the hardware. Apple blathers on and on about how they're a hardware company, but that's bull. They're a software company,

      I believe the direct opposite is true. Apple is undisputedly a hardware company as they make no money whatsoever selling software except to people who own their hardware. They make good software, yes, but they do so only in order to sell more hardware. Even if OSX was the holy grail of software perfection and superior to everything else for all purposes (it is not, for many reasons, some of which you mention yourself), Apple would still be a hardware company.

      No one is going to buy a Mac now to run Windows on it.

      Why not? People buy Sony laptops, IBM/Lenovo laptops, not just the cheapest-possible-laptops. If Apple makes great hardware for Windows to run on, why would people not buy it? People who are just slightly curious about MacOS can now buy Apple hardware for a little premium and try it out, and if they don't like it they have paid a little more than they had to for a nice machine.

      The whole point of a Mac is NOT to run Windows. No, that's the whole point of Linux (Kidding! I love Linux! Really!)
      The Mac platform has it's own merits, and I hope most of it's users use it because it's a Mac, not because it's "anything but windows".

      You might not believe it, but I know people who have bought Macs, used them for a good while, only to find out that they prefer Windows after all. MacOS was not superior, for them. Not everyone is equal, not everyone has the same needs, and MacOS is not the best choice for everyone.

      I do agree about the main point though, I think this is far from the end of Apple. It could, maybe, possibly, be the beginning of the end of MacOS. Back when MacOS was a pile of crap compared to anything else, it was the fact that you _had_ to run it on your Mac that kept it alive. Should Vista or any future Windows (or Linux) release happen to be clearly better than MacOS, people will have options.

    30. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by brkello · · Score: 1

      Umm, people aren't saying that...you are just making this up to karma whore. You copied and pasted this same text in other threads. Please, mod this person down.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    31. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by jthill · · Score: 1

      And one of the FreeBSD founders emphatically (his word was "hallelujah") agrees with you . He made his case and asked them to hire him.

      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
    32. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by weg · · Score: 1

      This will entice a huge population of people who have been teetering on the edge to make the switch. And now every time they reboot into OS X from Windows, or into Windows from OS X, the superiority of OS X will become clear.


      10 years ago (or longer?) I was a huge OS/2 fan. I loved the OS/2, but I kept Windows on a separate partition because I wanted to run certain programs that didn't work under OS/2 (not even in the Windows emulation, which I had running most of the time anyway). Even some of the programs that were available under OS/2, e.g. Lotus Smartsuite, worked much better under Windows. So I kept booting into Windows. Most of the time. When I started using Linux, I wiped OS/2 from my harddisk, because I virtually never used it anyway.

      I'm using a Mac now. But rather than dual-booting, I'll just buy a second computer once Vista is released. Thus, I won't be tempted to run Vista all the time on the only computer that I own.

      On the long run, dual booting just doesn't work for me.
      --
      Georg
    33. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I go to MIT.

      These are some of the smartest people in the world - they're not buying the Macs for the pretty colors.

      I graduated from MIT. Sure there are smart people there, but there are plenty of clueless ones too. The smart ones are the ones who are capable of making informed decisions, aren't influenced by conformism or fashion, and don't automatically assume that what works for them is the perfect solution for everyone else.

      That said, I agree with the grandparent. I've used OSX on an occasional basis, but when I need to get real work done, I use linux.I need an environment that can be configured the way I want. Choosing menu fonts and a background is what passes for "configurability" on OSX. When they start supporting multiple virtual desktops, focus follows mouse, and no toolbar (I want control of *all* pixels), wake me up and I'll take another look.

      Also, Linux on laptops sucks. Power management support, fan control, wireless network support, sleep support, bluetooth, manufacturer-specific keys, none of those work. It may be possible, but it isn't pleasant.

      Which is it? Either none of them work, or "it may be possible"?

      This is what resellers like Emperor Linux are for. Just pick the laptop you want and have them get Linux installed with all the bells and whistles enabled.

    34. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Smurf · · Score: 1
      Now the Dell is not a 100% replica of the Apple, but neither is the Apple completely superior to the Dell. This isn't a full list of differences, but it hits the high points:


      It seems to me that you are still missing some important points:

      On the Mac side, you didn't include MagSafe, Gigabit Ethernet, optical audio in/out (and I'm not sure if the Dell has built in speakers and microphone), ambient light sensors, and DVI port. The MacBook Pro is also smaller (1.0" x 14.1" x 9.6" vs 1.44" x 14" x 10.45") and lighter (5.6 vs 6.18 lbs). Also, for many people like me, Win XP MCE is not a good alternative for XP Pro, reducing the price gap.

      On the Dell side, it has two more USB connectors (but they are Type B !!), a flash memory slot (not sure what it's used for), S-Video port (additional $20 adaptor for the Mac), and integrated modem (ditto).

      Agreed, the MacBook is still quite more expensive and the E1505 is a great deal (specially after rebates/coupons), but some of these differences make the price gap less daunting.
    35. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by shmlco · · Score: 1

      "No one buys a Mac for the hardware."

      Using that sexy solid aluminum Powerbook hardware was in fact the major reason I bought one. Since most of my apps (Dreamweaver, Photoshop) are cross-platform, both the mac and windows would do the job.

      However, I appreciate style, elegance, and substance, and couldn't stand the idea of owning another flimsy plastic Sony or dead-weight-blah Dell.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    36. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by shmlco · · Score: 1

      "I think this will make the MacBook Pro simply an unchoosable option for my next laptop"

      Would be a shame, but I'd think a neatly applied dab of aluminum paint would demonstratively render the built-in iSight camera hors de combat.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    37. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by SideshowBob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That said, I agree with the grandparent. I've used OSX on an occasional basis, but when I need to get real work done, I use linux.I need an environment that can be configured the way I want. Choosing menu fonts and a background is what passes for "configurability" on OSX. When they start supporting multiple virtual desktops, focus follows mouse, and no toolbar (I want control of *all* pixels), wake me up and I'll take another look.

      So your idea of 'real work' is configuring the UI of your desktop? (By the way, all of the features you listed are available, either as part of the default OS or with shareware)

    38. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      > No one buys a Mac for the hardware.

      I know two people in real life who did.

      > No one is going to buy a Mac now to run Windows on it.

      Why not? If you buy a Mac, you're garenteed quality hardware, that's good for gaming, your company/university (they have weird programmes that do this)/parents may wish to buy you a new computer, but may not be willing to buy you a 'gamer' machine. But if you buy a machine from apple for 'work' puposes, it can definately be used for some good gamer usage.

      > They're going to buy a Mac because they've always wanted to try OS X

      Or maybe they prefer the fact that Apple handles their waranties better than Dell, gateway etc.

      > It is absurd to suggest that Apple is going to die now that people can run Windows on their Mac.

      Agreed.

      > Companies are not going to stop making OS X software just because Apples can run Windows

      This maybe true, since companies want to maximize their profits. Since they already have a product developed, there is no point to stop updating it. But! Additionally, companies that never had Apple products, such as Valve, will now see no point in making one.

      > if people wanted Windows, they would've bought a freaking Dell!

      I know a few people that would rather buy a PPC Mac (which they've never used before), before getting a Dell.

      > I don't understand why people think this means companies will stop porting applications to OS X

      I am certain it won't stop companies from making ports, but when companies make a application that relies completely on one os, say Windows. It won't be worth the amount of work to completely rewrite major parts of the application, just so it can run under MacOSX. Especially when the hardware can run Windows.

      > no one is going to tolerate dual-booting between OS X and Windows to use any major desktop application.

      Gamers may, but they will probably do something like this: Windows for gaming, instant messaging, chat, e-mail.
      MacOSX for work, essays, instant messaging, chat, e-mail.

      Probably spending most of their time under Windows, gaming. Since, after all, they are gamers.

      > And now every time they reboot into OS X from Windows, or into Windows from OS X, the superiority of OS X will become clear.

      You do know that Windows is booting faster here than MacOSX, right (although shutdowns take a bit too long compared to other OSes)?

      > Even more so as time goes on, when the Windows installation becomes a spyware-infested, bloated piece of crap with fifteen different taskbar icons taking up 30MB of RAM each that starts to pause mysteriously after common tasks

      Actually, one nice advantage about having MacOSX, is that I can easilly restore the windows partition if it ever gets too poopy using 'dd' and a harddrive image :)

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    39. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Pfft, mailing lists? RSS is the future! Let us hammer his webserver with requests every hour!

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    40. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      > But the beauty of OS X is, you don't have to deal with all the hassles of Linux.

      What hassles?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    41. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Under Linux, you can run IE6 under WINE, just see the application database to find information on how to set it up.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    42. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Zathrus · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that you are still missing some important points

      No. I said it wasn't a full list.

      On the Mac side, you didn't include MagSafe, Gigabit Ethernet, optical audio in/out (and I'm not sure if the Dell has built in speakers and microphone), ambient light sensors, and DVI port.

      MagSafe is cool, I grant you that. Gigabit ethernet? Uh, you realize that neither system has enough bus bandwidth (not to mention hard drive speed) to even come close to handling that data rate, right? Optical in-out, sure, but I don't consider that a huge thing. Yes, the Dell has built in speakers and microphone -- were you serious? Ambient light sensor is only relevant for the backlit keyboard, which I mentioned. I am surprised the Dell doesn't have a DVI port, but hey, the Apple doesn't have a VGA port.

      On the Dell side, it has two more USB connectors (but they are Type B !!), a flash memory slot (not sure what it's used for), S-Video port (additional $20 adaptor for the Mac), and integrated modem (ditto).

      Type B? Who cares? That's standard USB port. It has a 5-in-1 memory reader, not a "flash memory slot" -- and I should've listed that as a big feature because, IMO, it is. Saves me a USB port and a dongle for reading various camera card formats. S-Video is "eh" to me, just as digital audio out is. I mentioned the integrated modem.

      You left out (on the Dell) 802.11a support, a non-slot loading drive (so it can handle small CD/DVDs), and the instant-media support (don't boot the OS for music/movies). None of which I consider important, but you seem to want a full list.

      Also, for many people like me, Win XP MCE is not a good alternative for XP Pro, reducing the price gap.

      Exactly what features do you need in Pro that aren't in MCE? There's exactly one difference you know. Admittedly, it can be a fairly important one to some business users, but the gap in features between XP Pro and OS X is much larger, so it's more fair IMO to compare the systems with those two.

    43. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by syousef · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that if a very intelligent person is using a Mac it's definitely because they choose to and has nothing to do with the fact that it may be a policy at their place of employ, because they need interoperability, because they simply haven't tried the alternatives for for any one of a thousand other good reasons?

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    44. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I went to DELL's site and listed all the above and my final price was $1755. Not the same thing as yours. Where did you get the -$450 ?

    45. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Zathrus · · Score: 1

      If you got a different price today then they may have changed their pricing or deals. It was $1501 yesterday (and the day before, and last week).

      The $450 coupon is from one of the deals they are currently running. You can click on "Save up to $750 on Inspirons" in the Dell Home section, or just go read up on it here: http://www.xpbargains.com/dell_coupons/

    46. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      OK thanks, however even with the 20% discount for "laptop of the week" or somesuch from the page you give, with the options you listed I get $1723, down from $2150. Maybe you started from a different laptop, I started from the leftmost one, the supposedly best one.

      So really, unless you hunt for those rare deals, the DELL is only slightly cheaper than the Mac, and the difference might be attributed to having to recoup more R&D + Dev of OS/X or whatnot.

      Mind you, the DELL ships with 2y warranty to the Apple's 1y, and getting one like that DELL for the price you quote is one hell of a deal.

    47. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Zathrus · · Score: 1

      I started from the leftmost one, the supposedly best one.

      Then you have an upgraded warranty, additional software, and various other crap.

      Start with the 2nd from the right -- it's the lowest end Core Duo processor. You can then upgrade it to your heart's content (beyond the leftmost one if you want).

      Oh, and if you got $2150 as the before-discounts-price then you're eligible for the $750 off coupon -- which is quite a bit more than anything else you can possibly use.

      unless you hunt for those rare deals

      Thing is, they're not rare. Hell, Dell advertised these deals in our local Sunday paper. And they have similar deals running all the time. And "hunting" for the deal consists of putting "Dell coupon" into Google and hitting "I feel lucky". If you don't want to use them, fine, but then you may as well start ignoring prices altogether because it's apparantly not a priority for you.

    48. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Tim Berners-Lee, who I imagine needs to get some real work done, doesn't use Linux. He uses MacOS X. So if you want to use Emperor or Ubuntu or whatever, go right ahead, because you know so much better than the inventor of the World Wide Web, and he's only conforming to the fashionistas. We are so awed by your brilliance!

    49. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by binary+paladin · · Score: 1

      CrossOver Office is, more or less, commercial WINE and in my experience it was much more stable and easier to set up. It's a non-issue now though since I don't run Linux on a desktop anymore.

    50. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Smurf · · Score: 1
      No. I said it wasn't a full list.
      The difference is in what you consider the important points and what others (e.g., I) do.
      Gigabit ethernet? Uh, you realize that neither system has enough bus bandwidth (not to mention hard drive speed) to even come close to handling that data rate, right? Optical in-out, sure, but I don't consider that a huge thing. Yes, the Dell has built in speakers and microphone -- were you serious? Ambient light sensor is only relevant for the backlit keyboard, which I mentioned. (...) the Apple doesn't have a VGA port.
      Two PowerBooks can transfer at over 200 Mbps when connected directly. I bet MacBooks can reach 300 Mbps (OK, maybe the disks won't allow it). Granted, much less than Gigabit, but far more than what you can theoretically get with 100 BaseT. Optical in/out: extremely important for media professionals, it used to be a deal breaker when the PowerBooks didn't offer it. Built in speakers/mike: sorry, I couldn't find that info in the Dell page, and I have seen recent laptops without internal microphones (not Dell). Ambient light: also controls screen brightness, if you want it to; i would. Apple includes the DVI/VGA adapter.
      Type B? Who cares? That's standard USB port. It has a 5-in-1 memory reader, not a "flash memory slot" -- and I should've listed that as a big feature because, IMO, it is. Saves me a USB port and a dongle for reading various camera card formats. S-Video is "eh" to me, just as digital audio out is.
      I use USB for only three things: thumb drives, iPod, printer. The thumb drives are always Type A, the iPod doesn't come with Type B cable, nor did my printer. I would need adaptors or new cables, and that would suck, specially for the thumb drives, so I care a lot. Thanks for the info on the memory reader, but Dell calls it flash memory slot (or maybe they are different things?). S-Video: essential to watch DVDs on TVs that don't have DVI ports. PowerBooks had it, MacBooks don't. I would miss that (actually, I'd get the adaptor).
      Exactly what features do you need in Pro that aren't in MCE? There's exactly one difference you know.
      You're right! I was under the false impression that MCE was a souped up version of Home and not of Pro. While Home is just unacceptable for me, it's good to know that I could save a lot of money getting MCE instead of Pro.
      but the gap in features between XP Pro and OS X is much larger
      Huh? If you are saying that it makes more sense to compare OS X to MCE instead of XP because MCE has more features than Pro (except joining a domain), I agree. If you are saying that it makes more sense because the bigger gap favors XP over MCE, I would say you are contradicting yourself.
    51. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by bingo4000 · · Score: 0

      You have NO IDEA what you're even trying to discuss in here. Case in point: Your ignorance on USB - Type B is the SOCKET that is STANDARD on just about every PC I've ever seen. Incidentally, the reason most thumb drives are Type A, is because type A is the only connector that fits into the STANDARD socket which is Type B. Why do people feel it necessary to comment so decisively on topics they clearly can't understand.

    52. Re:Apple is going to make a killing... by Smurf · · Score: 1
      You have NO IDEA what you're even trying to discuss in here. Case in point: Your ignorance on USB - Type B is the SOCKET that is STANDARD on just about every PC I've ever seen. Incidentally, the reason most thumb drives are Type A, is because type A is the only connector that fits into the STANDARD socket which is Type B.

      So, if I make a small technical mistake all my argument is automatically invalid?

      The funny part is that you are actually much more ignorant about USB than I am. As you can see here Type A and Type B connectors are actually completely different. Type B is NOT the female counterpart of Type A. Your explanation makes absolutely no sense.

      My mistake here is that the ports on the Dell are actually Type A. That's the standard on PCs. I misinterpreted the photographs.
      Why do people feel it necessary to comment so decisively on topics they clearly can't understand.

      I dunno, you tell me, you're the expert.

      Actually, I do know. This is a public forum, not a professional one. Zathrus and I were having a relatively amicable discussion on what we thought were the merits of two comparable personal computers. We are not required or expected to be experts to do so here, and as such we are allowed to make mistakes. When someone realizes that those mistakes were made, they're allowed (and even expected) to point them out. That way everyone learns something.

      What really spoils these forums are not people who think they are right when they are wrong, because they will be corrected. Instead is people with rotten attitudes who can't criticize without insulting their counterparts. And it's particularly sad when these horribly-mannered people turn out to be even more wrong.
  18. OS X games by suzerain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One sad thing about this, as a Mac user and Mac gamer, is that this probably puts a big fat nail in the coffin for AAA OS X-native game titles. Or maybe it's less of a nail, and more like sticky tape, meaning the coffin can be reopened if OS X attains a bigger critical mass.

    Another interesting side-effect is the stats. Apple is always fond of calling people 'switchers', as if when the person buys a Mac for his home, his Windows box suddenly disappears. Well, now, we've got a machine that can run anything....so...er...what is it? Makes me feel like the only real way to track platform penetration will be browser stats.

    Strange new developments, indeed, even though we all knew it would happen when Apple went Intel.

    --
    gameDB
    1. Re:OS X games by neersign · · Score: 1

      along the same lines, I'd really like to see benchmarks not just comparing Apple hardware running Windows to PC hardware running windows, but I think it would be interesting to see which OS utilizes the Apple Hardware better. It might be too early to do so, but I think it would definitely be worth knowing which hardware type really is better (obviously it will depend on application, just like intel vs amd)

    2. Re:OS X games by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      One sad thing about this, as a Mac user and Mac gamer, is that this probably puts a big fat nail in the coffin for AAA OS X-native game titles. Or maybe it's less of a nail, and more like sticky tape, meaning the coffin can be reopened if OS X attains a bigger critical mass.

      I completely disagree. What percentage of Mac buyers do you think will acquire a copy of WinXP and use Boot Camp? I'd guess less than 20%, and probably less than 10%.

      I submit that the millions of machines running only MacOS represent quite a lucrative target market. Further, I expect MacOS marketshare to grow pretty rapidly, not shrink.

      The winners? Cross-platform game engine developers. Oh, and the Mac users. :-)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    3. Re:OS X games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see it a different way. I see more people buying Macs. Those people will start asking the companies "why can't we take advantage of the better hardware and OS to play our games? Why should I have to boot into Windows?" More people buying OS X means more people buying OS X games. The good companies will still make the games, and hopefully the new ones will see the monetary reasons and respond to the fanbase. Regardless, the World of Warcraft CD already installs to the Mac so what more could you need? ;)

    4. Re:OS X games by diamondsw · · Score: 1

      Another interesting side-effect is the stats. Apple is always fond of calling people 'switchers', as if when the person buys a Mac for his home, his Windows box suddenly disappears. Well, now, we've got a machine that can run anything....so...er...what is it?

      I'd say it gets counted as a Mac. After all, we've been shafted all these years with "market share" (even though the overwhelming majority of that is corporate purchases) and before that with "shelf presence" (Mac software was primarily sold through excellent mail order companies).

      It would feel good to have the shoe on the other foot.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    5. Re:OS X games by suzerain · · Score: 1

      I'd like to believe you, but Aspyr has already trimmed back the titles it's releasing, for example. Of course, maybe it just means the end of the porting business, but I think we're going to go through a period where game developers just say "reboot and play it under Windows". Hell, the way the market is today they say "Fuck off. You can't play our game."

      As far as what percentage of Mac buyers will install XP...maybe only 10% of the current Mac owners will be inclined to do so, but this is being touted as a big new reason for switchers to buy Macs. I would think, then, that those new converts will be the one buying their Windows copies.

      --
      gameDB
    6. Re:OS X games by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Whether or not it was Apple who released a dual boot solution, it would have happened anyhow.

      If you really care about the Mac getting its fair share of games ported, then I can only recommend that you avoid booting into Windows, unless you life depends on it and that Mac users pay for their games.

      I like to keep my uptime above two weeks, so when I have to install something that requires a reboot I get annoyed, since normally I just put my computer to sleep. Having to reboot into Windows is something I wish to avoid.

      Now here is hoping that HL2 will be ported to the Mac <----- dream on ;)

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    7. Re:OS X games by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Those new converts would have bought Windows copies anyway, though, if they hadn't converted.

      However, they're quickly going to get tired of dual booting. They're going to have to decide, OS X or XP? Apple is betting that a good portion of them are going to want to go with OS X. Now you've got a much larger audience demanding games that run natively on OS X.

    8. Re:OS X games by badmammajamma · · Score: 1

      Excuse me...did you just refer to yourself as a Mac gamer? roflmao

      If you ever release a comedy CD, let me know.

      --
      Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
    9. Re:OS X games by rantingkitten · · Score: 1

      Mac gamer? What games would those be, gentle sir? The Apple logo puzzle thinger? Photoshop? Warcraft III?

      --
      mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
    10. Re:OS X games by rblum · · Score: 1

      World of Warcraft? Starwars Battlefront?

      Quite a few AAA title make it to the Mac, these days - just later.

    11. Re:OS X games by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      > that Mac users pay for their games.

      The Mac users *I* know, have most likely, never baught a game in their lives, but they do have many. Perhaps I'm just with a minority of people. However, these users I know, tend to believe games are too expensive, too this , too that . Which is a justification for them not to buy it, but pirate it.

      PC users on the other hand. I've seen piracy from minors, which is generally because they can't get it otherwise (parents won't buy it, don't have the money, shops won't sell it because of the rating).

      I've also seen piracy on PCs with better excuses than Mac users have used, such as, lack of CD checks, lack of code checks, lack of Steam which slows the entire game down to crawl and can't play offine a single player game because of anti-piracy checks (note: This isn't always the case with Steam, but it does happen at random intervals).

      Perhaps the industry sees less priracy on Macs, because there is less Macs.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    12. Re:OS X games by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      I don't think it will change much, just look at Linux, it runs practically on every modern architecture out there. People who see Linux as superior are the minority, as are the MacOSX users.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    13. Re:OS X games by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      > I completely disagree. What percentage of Mac buyers do you think will acquire a copy of WinXP and use Boot Camp? I'd guess less than 20%, and probably less than 10%.

      I guess 67%.

      > Cross-platform game engine developers.

      Would be nice to have more games targeted to Linux, *BSD etc. Which pretty much work on every modern architecture out there.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    14. Re:OS X games by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      > Hell, the way the market is today they say "Fuck off. You can't play our game."

      Valve certainly does that (which has captured a lot of the gamer market) and with Macintels supporting Windows, I don't think they're even going to consider the MacOSX platform now.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    15. Re:OS X games by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      > However, they're quickly going to get tired of dual booting. They're going to have to decide, OS X or XP? Apple is betting that a good portion of them are going to want to go with OS X.

      However, gamers are going to choose Windows, because companies, like Valve (whichs has quite a bit of the PC gamers market), aren't supporting MacOSX, and now with the advent of dual-booting windows on Macintels, I don't think they'll even consider it.

      If gamers can't play their games on MacOSX, they're not going to consider it.

      They may perhaps use it only when writing essays, photo editing, movie editing etc. Which tends to be what MacOSX is known for.

      Another factor: Apple is known for not caring much about backwards compatability, gamers may prefer Windows, because they know, there will be a way to play their old games on newer versions of Windows (heck, I can even play old DOS games like Frontier: Elite II still, which I do under windows xp, it even runs better than win9x runs it on the same hardware).

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    16. Re:OS X games by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Assuming the Mac keeps a very minor share in the game machine market. There's already speculation (posted on Slashdot) that some gamers may decide to buy Macs. If a decent portion of your target market has Macs you might reconsider your decision not to support them. I've heard from graphics developers that Apple's tools for doing OpenGL development are REALLY nice... there's no reason but marketshare not to write native Mac games.

      As for backward compatibility, Apple is awfully good at providing emulators when they make a major shift. I have older games that technically you can still play on Windows, but you absolutely require third party (often open source, maintained by enthusiasts) software to do it. Dosbox for instance.

    17. Re:OS X games by Warhaven · · Score: 1

      My only concern is that companies that were considering supporting Mac OS X on future releases of their software will now stop their development for OS X. After all, all you need to do is install Windows XP, load your VM ware, and run the app.

      I imagine the packaging for a game like Half-Life having the printed label:

      Supported Operating Systems: Windows 98/ME/2000/XP/Vista, Mac OS X*

      *Windows XP/Vista and VM ware required to play.

      Or:

      Now runs on Macintosh!*

      *Windows XP/Vista required for use.

    18. Re:OS X games by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      > I have older games that technically you can still play on Windows, but you absolutely require third party (often open source, maintained by enthusiasts) software to do it. Dosbox for instance.

      I have *never* found a DOS application I couldn't run under windows natively. Of course it's not always straight forward, which is why I have in the past written various howtos on some of my favorite DOS applications and games.

      There are also neat little tricks you can do on windows for certain DOS apps that like to mess up the system, use "start /seperated ", if I remember the command correctly, sandboxes them in their own enviroment. Quite useful :)

      I haven't found any issues with old win3.11 applications either under windows. Heck, last year when I started macroeconomics, I had to buy various books, which had software that came free with it. Strangely enough, one of them was a application written for windows 3.11 (I discovered it when I looked into the taskmanager to see wow/ntvdm running).

      To my knowledge, I can't run mac classic apps under Macintels and the emulation on PPCs was rather poor from having seen people who were using Photoshop for Mac classic (Why did they buy that? They should of got a native version, bleh) on MacOSX.

      (Sorry about the delay in my post, first time Slashdot told me I posted too much in one day.)

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    19. Re:OS X games by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I have a bunch of games that wouldn't run under 32-bit versions of Windows. From what you say there's probably a trick that would make them go, but really, the average gamer (not the power ones) isn't' going to go to that much trouble. Actually, I found a lot of the older DOS and Windows games run very nicely under Virtual PC on my Mac.... ;)

      I think you're right -- Classic doesn't run on the Intel Macs. I'm not really surprised. The Classic support on the PPCs was quite good, when you consider what it was doing, and that it was free. It was a bit slow compared to native apps, but that's not surprising and actually GOOD when you're talking about older games.

      You might be right that Windows has better legacy support for games, but I'm not sure it's really that important to the majority of people who buy games. I'm sure the game publishers would rather it wasn't the case. After all, if you're playing old games you're not buying as many new ones as you could, are you?

      How many times did you post today??

    20. Re:OS X games by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      > After all, if you're playing old games you're not buying as many new ones as you could, are you?

      I'm actually not much of a gamer, I pretty much only have a interest in four games I own, which I don't play that often.

      Note: I don't try to convince anyone to upgrade or such, I just help my aquaitences and friends whenever they have issues.

      > You might be right that Windows has better legacy support for games, but I'm not sure it's really that important to the majority of people who buy games.

      I spend a bit of time helping aquaitences, online friends with getting their games/programs working. You'd be suprised that some of my aquaitences (two actually) even today, don't want to switch from windows 98se (which crashes regulary) to windows XP, because last time they tried it (without my help), it didn't let them play *insert favorite game* out of the box.

      > I'm sure the game publishers would rather it wasn't the case.

      I agree, absolutely.

      > After all, if you're playing old games you're not buying as many new ones as you could, are you?

      I suppose not :)

      > How many times did you post today??

      Hm, this is going to be my 13th post. I tend to post on Slashdot when I can't sleep.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  19. That's funny by punkr0x · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Firefox downloaded and installed flawlessly, and iTunes streamed songs easily from other PCs on the network.

    So he installed a better browser, because IE is crap... and ran iTunes. Why is he even doing these things in XP, he has OS X on the damn machine!!

    Obviously the big reason is games, but I think this is going to be bad for gaming on macs in the long run. Not many developers released their games on mac before, but why bother now? Just install XP!

    1. Re:That's funny by rakkasan · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is too simplistic, but what about just making games with all the required libraries, fsck the dll files, and have the system reboot to start the game. Worked for DOS didn't it?

      --
      The problem is choice..
    2. Re:That's funny by punkr0x · · Score: 1

      Operating systems have got a wee bit more complicated since the DOS days...

    3. Re:That's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Why run a mac anyway? They're huge pieces of expensive shit. And OS X is the most overrated OS since Linux. So... what's your point?

    4. Re:That's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he hates the inconsistent window maximize/minimize behavior in OSX, the asinine "let's have the menu toolbar at the top of the screen rather than in the individual windows" logic of Macs (makes it real fun on a dual monitor setup... hmm lets see window is open on monitor 'B', where the @#$@E@ is the menu?)

      As someone who uses OSX (forced to by work), XP and Gnome under Debian, I can honestly say that
      OSX just ain't all that, especially when you turn off the useless eye candy. My old 1.2GHz Athlon with 512MB smoked my crappy 1.2GHz G4 work iBook with 768MB in terms of bootup time and application launch times.

    5. Re:That's funny by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's a good idea. Maybe there could be a free linux distro that included all the necessary stuff to run a game, and developers could use that to make their games. No more worrying about Norton taking up all the resources, or MSN messenger popping up all the time in the middle of the game, or having to test the game under 1800 different windows configurations. I doubt this would be possible with a windows base, because I don't think MS would let game company give away parts of the OS free with the game. That would give people another way to run a computer, without ever really needing to buy windows.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    6. Re:That's funny by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but it's probably a slippery slope for Windows. If non-games are more compelling on the Mac side, and people keep/use Windows either for "critical" apps or games, eventually Windows becomes marginalized. What hasn't happened for Linux will probably happen for the Mac: the "critical" apps will eventually be ported to the MacOS. That'll leave gaming. Windows then becomes solely a gamer platform. Might as well buy an XBox360/PS3 at that point, because it'll be far less hassle.

      Any developer resistance will be for those who love the complexity (for complexity's sake, more often than not) they've "mastered" with C++ or Java who don't want to try and wrap their brains around ObjC, just like there are people who don't want to wrap their brains around Ruby and stick with Perl, PHP, Python, J2EE, etc.

      Too bad Loki went out of business and Paul Allen/Vulcan Ventures didn't throw some money their way to keep it going for a couple more years (look at all the money Paul has thrown at the Portland Trailblazers and the ROI on that...). Oh well. Playing SMAC or RT3 on Linux is still just better and faster than playing them on Windows.

    7. Re:That's funny by CottonEyedJoe · · Score: 1

      >but why bother now? Just install XP!

      Some developers will do this, however, there will have to be a VERY compelling reason to run that app/game. Back when Apple switched to OSX Diablo2 was a hot game. For a period of time after OSX was released there was no carbon (OSX) version and you had to reboot into OS 9.x to run Diablo2. That was a huge PITA. People did it because they liked the game. It was a huge releief when the OSX native carbon version was released, and it was so compelling to Blizzard that they released OSX patches for Starcraft and Brood War (On the cheap rack well before OSX came out). The Bungie games Myth2 and Marathon, both "abandoned" prior to OSX's release have been community ported to OSX. Rebooting to run 1 app SUX and people will go to great lengths to avoid it.

      Mac users don't like putting up with kludgy crap to run an app. If an OSX alternative is availbale, they will use it. Even when a "free" (as in beer) version is available using another method. A good example is the variety of apps available via X11 and fink/darwinports. A number of alternative apps are availble free for the taking from the X11 world and most Mac users hate to use them. (Before you fire up your keyboard to tear me a new one, the slashdot mac crowd is NOT most mac users, I use fink and I'd guess many other /.ing mac users do too).

      On the flip side, if there IS a compelling reason to go boot windows, people will do it. At least for a while. During the OSX switch Quark took a long time to put out an OSX version. People stuck with Quark and they stuck with dual booting (or not upgrading to OSX) until Quark came around. As with linux, people make a conscious decision to run OSX. The "no-brainer" is to go to Best Buy and purchase a Windows PC. What that usually means is that Mac users, do not WANT to be running Windows. They might if they have to... for a while But a developer saying "Sure we support macs, boot into windows" is not going to fly if there are viable alternatives to her app.

    8. Re:That's funny by NeoTwig · · Score: 1

      One reason companies might not tell people to install XP is because that makes their game a hell of a lot more expensive. Sure, you can play this on a Mac, just $50 for the game and $150 for the OEM XP license. You DID pay for that XP license, didn't you?

    9. Re:That's funny by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      LA LA LA LA. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. (fingers in ears)

      Your's Truly

      Every Mac Fanboy

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    10. Re:That's funny by punkr0x · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is, people are going to run what is more functional, not what they *want* to run. I want to run linux. However, since I'm not very knowledgable on linux, I can't do the things I need to do as efficiently as I can in windows (yet), so I want windows running most of the time. I found dual booting to be a huge pain; I don't want two OSes for different purpose, I want ONE OS that does (the majority of) what I need to do. And the biggest hurdle macs face right now to becoming that one box that does everything is that there isn't much you can do on a mac that you can't do on a windows box. Sure there are apps that are nicer on macs, and some security advantages, but there is nothing you simply *can't* do on windows. Therefor the only reason for a gamer to buy a mac and dual boot is the notion that OS X is better or cooler somehow, and in the long run I think it just becomes a hassle to use an OS that can't do everything you want just because it does some things better.

  20. Linux Also Runs Through Boot Camp by WombatControl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Given the desire for Linux to run on everything, it's not surprising that someone's already tried running Linux with Boot Camp, which apparently does seem to work. Granted, there's still the issue of Linux drivers for the hardware, but it is a start.

    1. Re:Linux Also Runs Through Boot Camp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's drivel ... I've been waiting for this, but it isn't a success until there is a real install ... network support, random numbers (for sshd), and X11 are key. All this guy did was get to the first two screens of the Ubuntu installer, which entails choosing a language and keyboard type ... no drivers, not even hard drive recognition.

      Other sources (like the pre-bootcamp MacMiniIntel page on the Debian wiki) require a kernel patch.

  21. boot camp made me buy a mac by boxlight · · Score: 5, Funny

    ok -- i did it.

    after years of grumbling about windows, drooling over macs, and making all sort of excuses, i finally opened my wallet and bought a mac. (i have literally been thinking about doing this since the tangerine iMac)

    it's the 20" intel iMac. bought it last night and should be here any day.

    for the record, it was the support for dual booting OS X and XP that did it for me: (a) i need a windows machine for software development purposes; (b) i had uncertainly about the availability of mac alternatives to some of my most used windows utilities (ex. dvdshrink, nero ... call of duty ;)

    looks like i'm officially a mac guy now -- going to have to put that white apple sticker on my rear bumper -- Yikes!

    boxlight

    1. Re:boot camp made me buy a mac by Phillup · · Score: 3, Funny

      looks like i'm officially a mac guy now

      If you are, then I'm a lesbian because I like going down on chicks.

      Point is... you have quite a ways to go. The first step is realizing that Windows is of no use to you *at* *all*.

      When you make that step, then you'll be on your way to being a "mac guy".

      Right now, all you are is a mac *owner*.

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    2. Re:boot camp made me buy a mac by Forbman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Has anyone tried Bootcamp with Win2K Pro?

    3. Re:boot camp made me buy a mac by eldoo77 · · Score: 0

      How about MS-Windows 1.0??

    4. Re:boot camp made me buy a mac by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the other side :)

      I think the tools you are looking for are:
          - HandBrake (free, but donations welcome)
          - Toast ($$)
      For your Unix stuff:
            - Darwin Ports
            - Fink
      and for others:
            - Version tracker
      and mac games:
            - Inside Mac Games

      Also be sure to check out Adiumx.com, vlc, MPlayer OS X and the software from omnigroup.com

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    5. Re:boot camp made me buy a mac by dangitman · · Score: 1
      looks like i'm officially a mac guy now -- going to have to put that white apple sticker on my rear bumper -- Yikes!

      Don't forget, you will also need to buy a new wardrobe (black is a good choice, and quite slimming) and perhaps a portable latte-making machine.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    6. Re:boot camp made me buy a mac by default+luser · · Score: 1

      That's a very good question. I'm getting a Mac Mini delivered on Saturday, and I may be able to try this out during the week.

      My guess is it only works with XP specifically.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    7. Re:boot camp made me buy a mac by wootest · · Score: 1

      You, you probably don't even know what France is.

  22. No Interest For Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't play games anymore and I don't use Windows anymore. Nothing for me to see, I'll move along.

  23. Amazing for research by VendingMenace · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Speaking from the scientific research community perspective, i gotta say this is amazing. In the lab that I work in we have both macs and windows machines -- and a linux box. We really have more computers than we need, simply because we need programs that are availible soley on mac or windows for linux. Well, that is all about to change. Seriously, if a researcher can buy a single machine that will run linux, mac and windows programs, he will be all over it. Desktop space is somewhat a premium and having all you programs and data on a single machine is excellent.

    I personally see no reason why macs will not completely dominate the research world now. I know I cannot wait for my own. SWEET!

    1. Re:Amazing for research by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      if desk space is at that much of a premium why do you have a seperate linux box (linux and windows have been able to dual boot for years)?

      the fact is multibooting is a kludge, maybe acceptable for laptop users where weight is a huge issue or for very occasional use of other operating systems but i don't see the attraction if your at your desk and can put the machines on the floor (and control them with a kvm switch).

      This could be interesting for things like public clusters at a university though. People can't keep a long running session on those anyway and having one machine that can be everything could be VERY attractive.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    2. Re:Amazing for research by VendingMenace · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A fair set of questions...
      some of our windows boxes do dual boot, the linux box that does not functions as a server.

      I suppose that a KVM switch is an acceptable option, and we do have two for some of our workstations. However, we have 16 seperate LAB computers in our lab and 5 personal computers. I just feel that the flexibility in our lab would be greater if the majority of these computers could run both mac and windows. It seems better to have 16 macs that 32 computers all hooked up to KVM switches. I don't know. This is just my opinion of course. I guess best would be to use a fast mac with virtual PC so that you do not have to reboot to switch.

      The problem in our lab is this...
      The vast majority of our data aquisition is done on PC's. However, almost all of our simulation software is either written for mac or linux. SO what ends up happening is that there is enevitably a crunch for mac time, when everyone is trying to recreate their experemental data via theory. It just seems that if you have a mac on your instrument, then you could aquire the data, and without moving reboot into windows in order to process it. Seems nifty to me.

      Now of course, buying 16 new macs is somewhat cost prohibitive, but for a well-funded group (which usually has an equipment budget in which some money is to go to computers) it would now be unreasonable to replace a few of the old PC with new macs.

      I know that in our lab we could easily afford to buy four new G5s. Functionally, this is the same as having two seperate computers. Cost wise it is cheaper than buying a g5 AND building a PC. Plus then we have 1/2 as many computers overhead (the floor is not really an option in a synthetic chemistry lab).

      Like I said, you have some good points. But really, i see no reason why a lab would by PC's anymore, if they ever needed to use a mac. From a cost perspective, it is cheaper to just by the mac and and dual boot. Space wise, it is smaller, and time crunch wise it makes sense -- work up the data right after you aquire it -- without moving.

      I doubt all researchers will go mac, but i really would not be suprised if most do...

    3. Re:Amazing for research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I personally see no reason why macs will not completely dominate the research world now."

      Bang for buck? I'm also a scientist who needs a fair amount of CPU time, and it seems like you can get 2, maybe even 3 dual-core opterons for the price of a dual-core intel Mac. The Macs are good laptops but for compute it's linux on AMD all the way.
      Plus, I don't know how good Macs are at being centrally administered? We have a sysadmin who keeps the dozens of analysis packages etc up to date, is this still possible on a Mac network? It seems like you have to update the OS actually standing at the terminal at least.
      Finally, KDE is IMHO better than OS X for managing more than half a dozen windows. OS X needs virtual desktops and tabbed terminals! I know you can run KDE on OS X (though fink hasn't ported it to 10.4 yet so not really), but that uses a lot more RAM than just KDE.

      p.s. Windows programs! For science? Glad I'm not in your field :)

    4. Re:Amazing for research by tfinniga · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm a CS student, and we've got quite a mix in our lab here. We do graphics/vision/image processing stuff, and different people like different environments. However, given the fact that our machines can be triple-boot, I doubt we'll ever buy another Dell, simply because the lab can afford apple hardware, and it makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside to have beautiful machines.. :).

      --
      Powered by Web3.5 RC 2
  24. What's Apple up to? by alexwcovington · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I find it hard to believe that Apple would willingly shoot itself in the foot by making Windows run on their computers. They must be up to something.

    I recall all the propaganda on how "Apple is a hardware company" and that its software is secondary to its business model... but how far is that going to get them as their computers progress ever further to being a beige box in a magnesium case?

    What's really going on here? It's obvious: Apple has decided that the first salvos in the war between OSX and Windows will be fought on their home turf. We may only be months away from a general x86 release of OSX. It's going to be a fun decade!

    --
    (It's never too late to join the Renaissance)
    1. Re:What's Apple up to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think Apple has shot itself in the foot? In order to use this, you must have bought an Apple computer. They've already made money off of you. If somebody only wanted to run Windows, they would've bougth a generic PC, anyway. This only serves to make Apple computers more attractive to people who are considering OS X but don't want to give up Windows completely; now you can have both at once. Apple wins.

    2. Re:What's Apple up to? by biglig2 · · Score: 1

      Well, I think the general opinion is that this is for switchers. I mean, I can't buy a MacBook at work, because I need winodows. Or rather, I used ot not be able to buy one. Now I can.

      Lately I've been deciding on a new machine, and I'd pretty much came to the conclusion that I would get hold of a Mac Mini rather than putting a new video card in my PC so I could play Half-life 2. BootCamp means I can get both in one go. It also means I can install the windows-only tools I need for work so I don't have to unpack my laptop at home at all.

      For that matter it also means that when I next upgrade that laptop a MacBook Pro is a perfectly legitimate choice to make.

      All of this is music to Steve's ears, at the low low price of organizing a few windows drivers and an EFI module.

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    3. Re:What's Apple up to? by diamondsw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We may only be months away from a general x86 release of OSX.

      That's completely fucking asinine.

      Windows and OS X on a Mac = Hardware revenue for Apple
      Windows and OS X on a PC = Hardware revenue for someone else

      Explain why this is such a good idea?

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    4. Re:What's Apple up to? by Scarblac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey, I can play that game!

      Windows without OS X on general x86 = Software revenue for Microsoft
      Window with OS X on general x86 = Software revenue for Microsoft and Apple!

      Explain why this is a good argument?

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    5. Re:What's Apple up to? by tabdelgawad · · Score: 1

      I think you're absolutely correct. The real profit margins are in software, where each additional sale has near-zero marginal costs, and where your innovations are better protected from market competition (it's easy to copy Apple hardware, not so easy to copy OSX features). Apple made the mistake in the 80s and 90s of tying its then superior operating system to its hardware. As a result, it lost to Microsoft, bigtime. I can't imagine they'd want to make the same mistake again with OSX.

      It may be too late anyway. I don't know if OSX has a chance beyond its niche against Windows. Being better is never enough in a market with huge network effects and an entrenched player.

      --
      Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
    6. Re:What's Apple up to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I recall all the propaganda on how 'Apple is a hardware company' and that its software is secondary to its business model..."

                Well, so far, I've seen three posts in this forum alone about people who just ordered their first Mac because of Apple's decision to support dual booting. Apple is a hardware company only in that they make their money from selling hardware. They focus on quality and innovation in hardware and software equally (eg, mac mini, iPod nano, osx, iTunes, etc... many imitators, but no successors).

      "...but how far is that going to get them as their computers progress ever further to being a beige box in a magnesium case?"

                Moving towards more "beige" innards is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, UNIX could be called more "beige" than OS9. Intel chips are more widely used and are more thoroughly documented than PPC ones. This is good for Apple. Furthermore, OSX only has to support a small subset of beige box configurations--namely, their own. This is exactly why we are not "months away from a general x86 release of OSX." If Apple has anything to do with it, that will never happen.

    7. Re:What's Apple up to? by tabdelgawad · · Score: 1

      Because there are 100 times as many PCs in existence as there are Macs? And because Apple makes a mint every time they sell a copy of OSX, whether it's on Apple hardware or not?

      Only on slahsdot would the GP be labeled 'fucking asinine' and the P modded insightful!

      --
      Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
    8. Re:What's Apple up to? by jaypaulw · · Score: 1

      Where do I sign up for the free copies of OS X?

    9. Re:What's Apple up to? by phillymjs · · Score: 1

      And because Apple makes a mint every time they sell a copy of OSX, whether it's on Apple hardware or not?

      No, they wouldn't. See, you're thinking that they'd keep the $129 boxed copy price they sell OS X for now. You forget that they price it that low because Apple has already made money from the people buying it-- they bought an Apple computer. Even in the age of the iPod, 2/3 of Apple's revenue is from computer sales.

      Apple would have to price OS X for generic x86 PCs in the neighborhood of a boxed copy of XP Pro (MSRP $300). Pricing it that high means they'll sell less, because you people who piss and moan because you want to run OS X on some crapbox PC you built yourself are not going to pay for an OS that costs as much as or more than your computer did, and you know it. You're going to illegally download it, and then Apple makes no money on it. Oh yeah, that's much more lucrative for them than selling a computer.

      The last time the Mac OS could run on machines not made by Apple, it damn near killed the company. They won't make the same mistake again.

      ~Philly

    10. Re:What's Apple up to? by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      You discounted the following possibility:
      Software revenue > Hardware revenue.
      Now, if that revenue is profitable, its much more advantageous for Apple. Hardware is a tight margin game, one of Apple's handicaps has always been that its h/w is overpriced compared to similar performance from other generic brands... IBM has gotten out of the PC market altogether, since 2-3% profit on a good year isn't worth the effort. Look at the bin of legacy Fortune 500 companies that failed to survive in the PC h/w market: Packard Bell... Amdahl...Wang...Compaq...AST...IBM.

      Uncouple the h/w from the software, and Apple very well might be capable of beating Microsoft on the desktop. Think of the market -- ~95% of the PCs in the world; you can only gain market share.

      I don't consider Apple a h/w or a s/w company...I consider them a 'user experience' company, which is why they like to marry the two products together. The 'user experience' can be frustratingly patronising from time to time, but they get it right more often than wrong.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    11. Re:What's Apple up to? by rjung2k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because there are 100 times as many PCs in existence as there are Macs? And because Apple makes a mint every time they sell a copy of OSX, whether it's on Apple hardware or not?

      Yes, and everyone knows Windows users never pirate software...

      --

      --R.J.
      Electric-Escape.net

    12. Re:What's Apple up to? by tabdelgawad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Quick, someone phone Bill Gates back in the 1980s to tell him his idea of creating a $300 billion company will fail! Because of piracy!

      --
      Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
    13. Re:What's Apple up to? by hab136 · · Score: 1
      I don't consider Apple a h/w or a s/w company...I consider them a 'user experience' company, which is why they like to marry the two products together. The 'user experience' can be frustratingly patronising from time to time, but they get it right more often than wrong.

      That's the problem right there. If they have to support every random device out there - or worse, allow hardware manufacturers to supply their own drivers - then the user experience will suffer. Hardware manufacturers don't all have the same software quality, so you'll lose stability. Moreover, have you seen some of the abominations from HP, Creative, etc that pass for "drivers"? Printers, cameras, and sound cards should not install 17 applications, 3 always-present toolbars and generally take over your computer.

      Microsoft has previously blamed Windows stability problems on 3rd party drivers (quite rightly in many cases). Why would Apple want that?

    14. Re:What's Apple up to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn't have a guaranteed revenue stream in the form of a captive audience of hundreds/thousands of corporations who buy thousands of OS and Office licenses every couple of years. That's how they were able to survive despite piracy, and why they simply looked the other way for so long to increase their marketshare via piracy. When piracy became a drag on them, they started fighting it by adding product activation.

    15. Re:What's Apple up to? by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1

      You can be sure that if Apple did release OSX for general use on any PC, they'd add Activation to it.

      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
    16. Re:What's Apple up to? by Graymalkin · · Score: 1

      Without its hardware division Apple could go in the bin right next to other OS producing companies: Be, IBM's OS/2 division, Digital Research, NeXT.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    17. Re:What's Apple up to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's likely that they'll add activation to 10.5 to try to thwart the people who will buy it and get it running on their generic x86 boxes-- where activation would fail if the OS reports it's not running on genuine Apple hardware.

    18. Re:What's Apple up to? by phavens · · Score: 1

      um NeXT = OSX It's pretty much the same thing, just changed names.

      --
      Patrick Havens (Mr. 573333 to you.) Graphic Artist / Coder / Father / Journeler
    19. Re:What's Apple up to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      More like "dream of the market". They would never make enough in software in the short term to overcome the immense losses in their hardware sales. In the short term, everyone would pirate it to "try it out", and Apple would die, or quit the Mac business and go 100% iPod.

    20. Re:What's Apple up to? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Because when people switch to Mac, they switch to MacOSX to use Microsoft Office, Microsoft Media player, Photoshop...

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    21. Re:What's Apple up to? by ramk13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      In addition to your point, an increase in hardware demand (XP on a Mac) more directly leads to an increase in hardware sales than when you compare software (OS X on PCs) in the same situation. It's because of piracy. That's not to say people don't buy software, but that you can't pirate hardware.

    22. Re:What's Apple up to? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The danger is that will set up a dual boot machine, and end up spending most of their time in Windows for whatever reason. Then, the next time they are ready to buy a computer, they'll opt for a cheaper Windows PC over the Mac.

  25. Re:WILL SOMEBODY MOD THAT COCKSUCKER DOWN?! by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have nothing whatsoever to do with Parallels in any way, shape, or form. What, I talk up a product that I (and many, many others) have been waiting for for YEARS, and now all of a sudden it's marketing?

  26. An interesting side effect... by AugstWest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's kinda cool that Apple can essentially release ONE drivers disk and be done with it. A lot has been said over the years about Apple's benefits of having known hardware...

    This is how it works out with Windows. Here, have one installer. It will work on all our machines, and support everything in it. One Installshield script. It was the fastest WinXP or ANY Windows installs I've ever done.

    Thank you for playing, have a nice day.

    1. Re:An interesting side effect... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      It's kinda cool that Apple can essentially release ONE drivers disk and be done with it.

      Erm, I hate to say this but install Solaris on a piece of Sun hardware and you need NO drivers disk...

      Why do you believe this is anything special? It just so happens that an Apple box contains a limited range of hardware which makes it relatively easy to create a single installation CD. Just about every big IT department that uses a limited range of Dell or IBM or HP laptops creates a Windows XP installation CD with all the drivers in place from the moment of install.

      With Linux, it's even easier (as long as you know what hardware you're trying to get working) - just create a custom kernel with all the modules you need and install the packages you need on top of it. Else how does Knoppix detect & set up a lot of hardware from a single boot CD.

      Sometimes you Apple people need to look beyond the "cool" factor of their products and see what else is going on in the world...

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:An interesting side effect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read what the parent actually said -- he ws stating that this was the easiest _Windows_ install he'd ever done. Nothing was said about OS X, because OS X installs on an extremely wide range of Apple gear without the need for driver disks, and most 3rd. party Mac peripherals simply plug in, also without the need for any driver disks or a requirement to insert the original OS X installation disks.

      To paraphrase your own rather silly closing comment, those who want to boost Sun and linux really should learn to read posts before replying to them in ways that make them look like utter bufoons.

    3. Re:An interesting side effect... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Erm, I hate to say this but install Solaris on a piece of Sun hardware and you need NO drivers disk...

      And on my Amiga, it's all in ROM! :-D

      OK, now I'm ridiculing Solaris, but I think his point was the implication this has to the home users of today. Those who really want (and need) to have it as easy as possible. Solaris isn't exactly anything to place under the christmas tree for these reasons.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:An interesting side effect... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      those who want to boost Sun and linux

      ...and if you'd bothered to read my comment properly, you'd have read that I also spoke favourably about customising a Windows XP installation disk to the point where you wouldn't need any external drivers disks either.

      The point I was actually making (which I shall reiterate now exclusively for your benefit) is that given a small subset of hardware, just about any OS you can think of can be installed simply by virtue of a customised installation disk.

      So perhaps next time, read the WHOLE POST rather than hitting the "Reply" button the moment anyone mentions Linux.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    5. Re:An interesting side effect... by AugstWest · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it was anything special, I was just saying that I haven't really seen it applied to Windows.

      I've used Sun boxes for a decade now. I've never tried to boot Windows on one :]

    6. Re:An interesting side effect... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      It's kinda cool that Apple can essentially release ONE drivers disk and be done with it. A lot has been said over the years about Apple's benefits of having known hardware...

      This is how it works out with Windows. Here, have one installer. It will work on all our machines, and support everything in it. One Installshield script. It was the fastest WinXP or ANY Windows installs I've ever done.

      You have to be kidding that THIS is the reason you are praising Apple?

      Have you ever bought ANY 'name brand' Windows PC, ever?

      From owning an OEM company starting back in 1997, all our systems always shipped with a simple and single install disk with all the drivers automated for anyone installing or reinstalling Windows.

      Additionally, I haven't bought a computer in the last 8 years from ANY manufacturer that didn't include a reasonably well done 'single' driver installation process, or even having the drivers slipped into the Windows Installation itself on the OEM CD.

      This is NOT new or even remotely unique or exciting.

      There are other reasons to get excited about the dual boot (whether they are good or bad) but declaring how wonderful Apple is for doing what PC manufacters have done for years is insane...

    7. Re:An interesting side effect... by AugstWest · · Score: 1

      Wow a computer from a major manufacturer? Let's see... Only several hundred of them, desktops, servers, laptops from Dell, IBM, Apple, Toshiba, Acer and others, since 1994

      Ever look at a Dell driver CD? It's got hundreds of drivers, all named something like "902378346.exe" that don't tell you what they're for. You have to use their horrible little gui interface, and hope that the audio driver that you pick is for the hardware in your machine.

      This was my first experience with a single Installshield executable that installed CD/DVD, 802.11g, ethernet, video, bluetooth, firewire, audio, etc. I've never seen that from any manufacturer that I've worked with.

      And there are indeed lots of other reasons to think the dual-booting is cool, although there's really only one Windows app that I need, Cakewalk Sonar. If it wasn't for that single app, I'd be done with Windows completely.

      While it's nice to be able to boot into Windows on this Macbook, I have to say that it hurts to do so, and I get in and out of it as fast as I can.

    8. Re:An interesting side effect... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Wow a computer from a major manufacturer? Let's see... Only several hundred of them, desktops, servers, laptops from Dell, IBM, Apple, Toshiba, Acer and others, since 1994

      Ever look at a Dell driver CD? It's got hundreds of drivers, all named something like "902378346.exe" that don't tell you what they're for. You have to use their horrible little gui interface, and hope that the audio driver that you pick is for the hardware in your machine.


      Ok, how about 'most' manufacturers?

      The thing is, this is NOT new or unique or even a 'novel' concept. I have a Toshiba Laptop here with a single integrated install for Windows and Single install if you used another copy of Windows that just loads all their drivers.

      BTW This is also an 'EFI' Toshiba laptop. Oh, and it is also 4 years old. And this is my under my hands 'literally' example of a major company that provides this level of support and ease to their users.

      In the example I gave, when we owned a large OEM company, we even used the tools for Windows (provided by Microsoft) to slip our custom drivers into the Installation and Windows Setup CD shipped with the computers.

      All the users had to do was 'install' Windows, and our drivers installed automatically and even our 'Settings' installed automatically, from branding the computer with our support numbers to even 'branding' IE to have our Logo and Company name instead of Internet Explorer, it even installed our Tech Support Shortcuts for the users.

      If the user did not use our Windows CD to install Windows, They could run our 'single' setup installation to add all the drivers to their system, and even select if they wanted to 'exclude' drivers.

      What Apple is doing is not any different or what people should focus on, it is nice, but not the reason to give kudos to Apple.

      I'm not knocking Apple for any of this, although I think by them opening up their hardware to Windows, it will in the long run hurt OSX. Right now OSX isn't matching Windows for performance on the same hardware, not even with native applications, and the emulated application that have not been ported to Intel suffer even a higher performance hit.

      I guess I was surprised that anyone would think the single driver installation was a 'new' or somehow wonderful thing.

      From the above post and other posts, it seems some Mac users think that easy driver installation or availability is a hard thing in the Windows world. It isn't.

      Sure there are companies that have messed up driver installation processes and even manufacturers that don't integrate the drivers, but this is a lack of the manufacturer, not an inherent inability or flaw in Windows. You just have a lot of hardware options in the Windows world, and not all companies are good about the quality of their drivers or their installation.

      Take Care...

    9. Re:An interesting side effect... by ryanw · · Score: 1
      there's really only one Windows app that I need, Cakewalk Sonar. If it wasn't for that single app, I'd be done with Windows completely.
      Cakewalk Sonar? Uh, hello? Have you met Garageband, Logic Express, or even Logic PRO if you want to get super serious?
    10. Re:An interesting side effect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With Linux, it's even easier (as long as you know what hardware you're trying to get working) - just create a custom kernel with all the modules you need and install the packages you need on top of it.

      How is that easy?

    11. Re:An interesting side effect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the above post and other posts, it seems some Mac users think that easy driver installation or availability is a hard thing in the Windows world. It isn't.

      It's quite obviously the opposite, as the drivers that Apple is providing are the ones that the 'coder community' couldn't get working on their own. Therefore the driver availability for new hardware is not where you say it is.

    12. Re:An interesting side effect... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      It's quite obviously the opposite, as the drivers that Apple is providing are the ones that the 'coder community' couldn't get working on their own. Therefore the driver availability for new hardware is not where you say it is.

      What does this have to do with CODERS? It is NEW Hardware, APPLE Hardware, Intel/Apple Mainboards. Of course either Apple or Intel would have to provide drivers.

      Do you even have a freaking clue or just like to post?

    13. Re:An interesting side effect... by AugstWest · · Score: 1

      Cakewalk Sonar? Uh, hello? Have you met Garageband, Logic Express, or even Logic PRO if you want to get super serious?

      Sure, I've used them all, although my favorite these days is Ableton Live. It's the bomb.

      The problem i that I'm in a band in which everyone uses Sonar, so at the end of the night when we wander off to mix down our own stuff, the file on my usb keychain drive is a Cakewalk bundle, and I need to be able to open it to mix down my drums, as I'm an electronic drummer.

      Also, truth be told, Sonar's an awesome program. I really wish they'd port it to OSX. Cakewalk is finally dabbling in moving *some* programs over, but I'm not hopeful they'll ever go that far with it.

  27. and a video too! by Uneasysilence · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those of you who actually want to see the entire install/configuration process... http://features.uneasysilence.com/mactel

  28. Can bootcamp boot from an external hardrive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would just like to know if it's possible for Bootcamp to boot Windows (or any other OS for that matter, i.e. linux) from an external (USB or firewire) hard drive. That way you could make a clean delineation between your Mac system and everything else. And you wouldn't have to lug around the extra hard drive if you don't need it.

  29. This is just so.....WRONG by DrVomact · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why would I want to run the worst possible OS on the most expensive hardware? What a perversity! I want to put together my PC myself out of stock parts, then boot MacOS X...with Windows emulation until the software developers catch on and drop Windows. It would feel so good to pay for MacOS rather than the world's biggest software turd. Heck I'd pay twice as much for a good OS...I just don't want to be locked into Apple's hardware.

    --
    Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    1. Re:This is just so.....WRONG by BrianRoach · · Score: 1


      For the same reason I have an extra drive in my Sun Ultra20 workstation with windows installed.

      Games (that I want to play) don't run under Solaris, and there are 2 applications I need for work that are windozs only. Being able to dual-boot between Solaris and Windows is handy for this. This machine replaced my Sunblade 1000 and freed up my laptop from always having to be sitting on my desk running windows.

      - Roach

    2. Re:This is just so.....WRONG by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Why would I want to run the worst possible OS on the most expensive hardware?

      Come on now, talking about Alienware XP computers here is just plain off-topic. :-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  30. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Howabout you macintosh retards take your mac and shove it up your ass along with your pride.

    They would shove it up their ass but it's too stuffed with cock as it is.

  31. Microsoft now has 100% of the desktop market by lyonsden · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm just waiting for Microsoft to come out with a press release saying that now that Mac's can boot Windows XP they now own 100% of the desktop marketplace.

    That will be followed shortly by a law suit against apple for not including XP on every Mac sold.

  32. Virtual Reality by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since Mac virtualization looks pretty strong, Windows Vista will include virtualization, and virtualization is becoming standard fare on Linux, Boot Camp might just be the "entry level" method for running both Mac and Windows apps "on the same computer". Simultaneous execution in multiple windows under virtualization is a much bigger step, but dual-booting is much easier for the normals to understand. And it gets us down the road to a bigger technical step, but a nearly seamless migration (and great relief) for the normals: Mac/Windows apps running in the same desktop, with IPC/clipboard integration across "OS" boundaries as tight as across mere app boundaries.

    How long before the OS is just another app, along with any other OS'es required to run other apps? Just a library collection, running on a "nanokernel": the virtualization SW? And which OS will best run the virtualization: Windows, Linux, or some RTOS?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Virtual Reality by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      blockquote>How long before the OS is just another app, along with any other OS'es required to run other apps? Just a library collection, running on a "nanokernel": the virtualization SW? And which OS will best run the virtualization: Windows, Linux, or some RTOS?I dunno what RTOS stands for, But I'll hazard a guess:
      RootkitTime OS.

      Didn't you get the memo that rootkits are going to run your OS in a VM and completely pwn you in the process?

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Virtual Reality by rob_squared · · Score: 1

      Virtualization is more of a workaround than a solution. I think what every user wants to see are Universal APIs that are open and standardized across all platforms (*NIX/Windows/Mac) so that machines running the same CPU could use any program in any operating system.

      Why switch to an entirely different OS when you could just launch a program without having to worry if its a OSX binary or a Windows binary. But that would mean everyone has to agree on a standard, and we know how well businesses are at agreeing.

      --
      I don't get it.
    3. Re:Virtual Reality by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Virtualization works around the problem that all the different apps each require their own specific OS. Since OS'es are sold by the most competitive corporations in the world, that landscape isn't going away so soon. And virtualization also offers lots of other advantages in stability and administration. But I do think that unifying the GUI APIs (if not the GUIs) will solve the remaining problem: different GUI skills for different desktops, even with virtualization.

      Once any app can write to a single GUI API, and all major OS'es run on all the most popular hardware, the "platform defragmentation" will see apps choosing which OS to require based on merit rather than marketing (primarily vendor lockin). Some apps might even call multiple OS'es, but I expect that the entire OS layer will become open, at least within encapsulated APIs, with components from several OS'es combining for the most popular platforms.

      Just getting different OS apps onto the same screen at once is the biggest hurdle, because that's the main difference to users. Virtualization gets us there, though just barely. The unification momentum that jump creates will force us the rest of the way.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  33. BBC mentions slashdot by Yuioup · · Score: 1

    BBC mentions slashdot:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4883482.stm

    Kudos to the guy who wrote that:

    http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=182273&c id=15065726

    Y

  34. Now we can see... by bodester17 · · Score: 1

    Now we can see if there is any benifit to playing a game in windows or OSX. I would like to see the same game played on one of these dual-boot macs and see if one plays better under windows or OSX. The game will be running on identical hardware.

  35. Encourages to switch from MacOS to Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone talks about how this will entice Windows users to switch to Macs.
    But what about the reverse... won't this also entice MacOS users to switch to Windows?
    Haw! Just kidding...

    ---
    This anonymous post was brought to you by the image-obfuscated passphrase: "fallible"

    1. Re:Encourages to switch from MacOS to Windows by Hitchcock_Blonde · · Score: 0

      I know you're kidding, but you'd probably be hard pressed to find a Mac user that hasn't already had to suffer through Windows. This is why they use a Mac at home. This is a great time for Apple! They have a win/win situation with Boot Camp and now with Parallel's virtualization software.

      --
      Karma Schmarma
  36. don't hold your breath.... by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You know, I wasn't really planning to replace my dual G5 powermac for quite some time, but this might be enough to motivate me to put it up on ebay and get an intel machine when they come out.

    Don't hold your breath. Adobe is busy digging itself out of the huge mess that is "we never got off Codewarrior", and won't go Universal-Binary until the next release. Microsoft isn't in quite as bad a position, but is desperate to get people to upgrade to verion N+1 in office, so don't count on a free UB version there.

    Mark my words: you won't see a pro intel tower until Adobe (and possibly MS) are Universal Binary.

    While the "cottage industry" is mostly embracing UB and virtually everything I use has been UB for at least one or two minor revision numbers- the big boys are dragging their feet. Even Diskwarrior (from the vaporware kings, Alsoft- DiskExpress for OSX anyone?) isn't UB yet.

    I'm not exactly thrilled about Bootcamp. Why? 1)I don't want to dedicate 20-30GB to a disk partition for a host OS I'm not going to use except for gaming and 1-2 Windows-only apps I need. I much prefer an emulator-based solution like Qemu, or WINE aka "darwine". I'm also not thrilled because this just largely removed the "necessity" fire from under the pants of darwine and Qemu developers, and both projects desperately need more work.

    Unfortunately, Qemu/Q is buggy enough that Windows Update doesn't run on an installed guest OS and it doesn't import VPC7 systems cleanly like it claims. Darwine can't handle anything more complex than Minesweeper; half the installers I try don't run, and what does install never works. One error I saw in the WINE log said "JPEG support not builtin". Just loooovely.

    Oh yeah- and if you use Mono on OSX, there's an intel-only build, but it's missing a lot of standard important libraries, and the devs have refused to release a proper build. Oh yeah- and setting up a system to actually build mono is a goddamn pain and two thirds.

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
    1. Re:don't hold your breath.... by jthill · · Score: 1
      I'm not exactly thrilled about Bootcamp. Why? 1)I don't want to dedicate 20-30GB to a disk partition for a host OS I'm not going to use except for gaming and 1-2 Windows-only apps I need.
      You don't need 20-30GB. Apple say 5G minimum to (free space - 5G) max. XP itself takes about 1.5, and needs about 2.5 during install. Ok, you're not exactly thrilled, to tell the truth neither am I — it's a neat trick, I'm smirking, but thrilled? — but ... why does the need to use hard drive space for your apps have any effect on that?
      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
    2. Re:don't hold your breath.... by Logic+Bomb · · Score: 1
      Mark my words: you won't see a pro intel tower until Adobe (and possibly MS) are Universal Binary.

      Um... In the announcement for the Intel iMac and MacBook Pro (Macworld Jan?), Steve said all model lines would go Intel by the end of the year. So no, Creative Suite won't be out until next year, and yes, Intel-based Mac workstations will be out before then.

    3. Re:don't hold your breath.... by iphayd · · Score: 1

      I call BS.

      Video workstations need all the firepower and more of a graphics workstation. Since Final Cut is Universal, I would say that they'll have a quad Pow, err Mac Mac Quad intel Pro Tower in the next couple months.

    4. Re:don't hold your breath.... by Ibanez · · Score: 1

      Um...20-30 gigs? I used a 10 gig partition and installed Windows XP Pro, and still have around 7.8 gigs free on that partition. Yeah, that's not enough to keep more than one or two DVD sized games on there, but uh...who would keep 4 gig disk images on a 100 gig laptop harddrive?

  37. Yes. by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is just about gaming.

    1. Re:Yes. by donweel · · Score: 1

      Agreed, rebooting to play some games is a small price to pay, as it seems to be under 20 seconds on the new Macintel. Then back to work. The only thing left to desire would be hd dvd and a mini would be perfect for under the video projector.

      --
      Many a long talk since then I have had with the man in the moon; he had my confidence on the voyage. Joshua Slocum
  38. Microsoft Tax? by rubberbando · · Score: 1, Troll

    Does that mean that now that it's possible to run Windows on a Mac that Microsoft will expect everyone who buys a Mac to pay their tax reguardless of whether the buyer actually plans on using Windows on it?

    --
    DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
    1. Re:Microsoft Tax? by eldoo77 · · Score: 0

      From what I've seen with Dell pricing vs. Mac pricing I'd rather have the Microsoft Tax than the Steve Jobs rulz tax.

    2. Re:Microsoft Tax? by brainnolo · · Score: 1

      No.

    3. Re:Microsoft Tax? by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      If you're replacing an existing Windows machine with a new Mac, you have a Windows license already. So, no. Well, some people who don't know any better probably will, but an awful lot won't, and it'll all be perfectly legal.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    4. Re:Microsoft Tax? by rubberbando · · Score: 1

      how did I get modded troll? I thought this was a valid question. I guess some tools out there have it in for me or something as this seems to happen alot lately. A few people mod me up and then a hour later someone else comes along and mods me down into oblivion. WTF? >:(

      --
      DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
    5. Re:Microsoft Tax? by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1
      If you're replacing an existing Windows machine with a new Mac, you have a Windows license already. So, no. Well, some people who don't know any better probably will, but an awful lot won't, and it'll all be perfectly legal.


      Try reading your EULA again.

    6. Re:Microsoft Tax? by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Note: "Replacing." As long as you don't attempt to use or resell your old hardware with the OS installed, there's no problem.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    7. Re:Microsoft Tax? by Baricom · · Score: 2, Informative
      No, your parent is correct. The EULA for all recent OEM versions of Windows ties the license to the computer. You cannot transfer it. Here's the relevant text from my copy of the Windows XP Professional EULA:

      THIS LICENSE MAY NOT BE SHARED, TRANSFERRED TO OR USED CONCURRENTLY ON DIFFERENT COMPUTERS. The SOFTWARE is licensed with the HARDWARE as a single integrated product and may only be used with the HARDWARE. If the SOFTWARE is not accompanied by new HARDWARE, you may not use the SOFTWARE. You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE, provided you retain no copies, if you transfer all of the SOFTWARE (including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any upgrades, this EULA and the Certificate of Authenticity), and the recipient agrees to the terms of this EULA.


      Here's that restated in simpler terms: "If the software is pre-installed, the software lives and dies with the PC and can never be transferred to another PC."

      Now, I think this is unethical and should be illegal, but unfortunately the U.S. legal system doesn't agree with me.
  39. this one certainly... by circusboy · · Score: 1

    off to take a shower now...

    --
    -- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
  40. MacIntel ** BOOTCAMP ** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This thing rocks. Its like I stayed up all night becasee the RSS feed from apple caught my eye about boot camp. I have ran 3DMark_06, installed the office suite, utilized some great blue tooth, tested some games, and was very impressed. Basically if you wanted to ever by a mac you should, don't look back. I am anxious to see what happens in Leopard with bootcamp is included what it will do. I ran a couple of webcasts on the mac from my windows boot, and everybody was very impressed and I can see why. You truly have to experience it like I have to get excited about it.

    The hype about virtual machines that's great, but its not as good as this. I think that there would have to really be something powerful to go the virtual machine route. You won't be disappointed using native hardware on the mac, so buy a mac, download bootcamp and enjoy life. Its to short.

    Rock on with your bad selves!!!

  41. Excellent idea by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Best thing Apple did since... well, I think since the MacBook Pro because they've done a lot of great things this year already.

    Early in my days, I tried to get people switch to Linux by explaining all its advantages, helping them to install it, the whole nine yards. Worked sometimes, didn't work most of the time.

    Since then, I've gone another path: The slow migration. Show them Firefox. Give them OpenOffice. Get them to use Thunderbird. etc. Then, when they are angry about their next windos crash, suggest Linux and show them that all of those run on Linux just the same. Instant switch. Moved my girl to Ubuntu just a few weeks ago, and she only boots dual-boots into windos for games by now.

    Apple's using the same technique. Let people use what they're comfortable with, but tease them with the better thing (OSX) while making the switch as painless as possible (runs in same hardware).

    By the time Vista comes out, Apple will probably have a sizeable chunk of the market, definitely more than 10%.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:Excellent idea by rpillala · · Score: 1

      That's probably the best way to get someone to switch. I remember reading here (?) about an African(?) country that was taking the same approach with its government computers. If you only use the operating system to launch applications, it doesn't matter what the OS itself is. And when the OS brand becomes irrelevant, it's a pretty easy decision to choose a stable one over an unstable one.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    2. Re:Excellent idea by rapier1 · · Score: 1

      I know this is probably heresy but...

      I have more problems with my Powerbook G4 than I do with my PC running XP SP2. On my Windows XP box I have fewer crashes, fewer mysterious hangups, fewer stalled applications, etc etc etc. Now, I know that this might be becasue that I do a lot of development work on my Mac (I basically got it because it was close enough to a unix box with a UI that didn't suck to make it worthwhile) and there is every chance I might have screwed something up somehow. It might also be because I don't see the point in powering things down (a long time mac user told me that was my problem). Still, as of this moment my Mac has been up 15 days since the last reboot and my XP box has been up 32 days. Either is pretty good but I think the 'wind0wz sux0rz' rhetoric has gotten a little stale.

      I just wish Apple would do something about their TCP stack. Ya know, the BSD stack they built on was the best stack around 5 years ago. Now its one of the worst. Even Vista has a better TCP stack.

    3. Re:Excellent idea by irrelative83 · · Score: 2, Funny

      >>Moved my girl to Ubuntu just a few weeks ago, and she only boots dual-boots into windos for games by now.

      At first I thought you meant your girlfriend...but then I remmbered the audience, and realized you probably call your second computer your 'girl'

    4. Re:Excellent idea by complexmath · · Score: 1

      It sounds nice, but there's still the required purchase of Mac hardware to deal with. This may not be a big deal for the fellow who simply buys a new PC every few years and discards the old one, but it is for the more hardware-oriented (or poor) folks who either upgrade piecemeal or insist on a specific hardware configuration. I may not be Apple's target market, but I've owned a PC since 1989 and have *never* purchased a pre-built system. And while I'd absolutely love to switch to OS X, I won't do so until it runs on arbitrary hardware... or perhaps years from now when enough changes that I have to replace my entire system to upgrade.

      Besides that... while I think OS X is a great OS, it's all about the applications. I felt similarly about OS/2 years ago and finally decided there was simply no point in using an OS as a glorified task-switcher between emulated application sessions. Now, the last great barrier for me is games, and that's an area in which OS X has yet gained little traction. Hopefully that will change now that they're on x86, but I suppose we'll see. By the way, I don't consider dual booting an option. I've done it in the past and it's far too annoying the day to day use. Virtualization may be preferable, but that will require a ton of RAM to be feasible, even with CPU support.

  42. Existing Windows Installation by 3D+Monkey · · Score: 1

    If you currently have a fully functioning windows machine, with apps, docs, etc installed. What's the deal? Can you pop that HDD in the compy and get the Mactel to recognise it, or do you have to rebuild your windows system over again?

    If it's the latter I think there's still an uphill battler for Apple. I suppose that any user who wanted to buy a Mac and run windows could just transfer your docs over, but it would be nice if there was a way to keep your clean install with out reloading every app you wanted. I dunno, might not be that big of a deal...

    1. Re:Existing Windows Installation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you currently have a fully functioning windows machine, with apps, docs, etc installed. What's the deal? Can you pop that HDD in the compy and get the Mactel to recognise it"

      I doubt it. With Windows XP, MS have deliberately made this a complex and dangerous process on any computer that can end up with your XP installation being trashed or permanently deactivated. Check out the following link for information:

      http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/moving_xp.html

      "If it's the latter I think there's still an uphill battler for Apple"

      It doesn't seem to have had an adverse effect on MS, and they're the ones making the job difficult, not Apple. BootCamp simply provides a BIOS emulation layer for EFI, a boot manager, and some Windows drivers for Apple hardware, not a complete rewrite of Windows XP, so it will not change the behaviour that Microsoft have deliberately programmed into their operating system.

  43. Why this is significant: Risk Reduction by Fished · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I think a lot of people are missing the true significance of bootcamp. What bootcamp does is, for the home user, reduce the risk of buying a Mac. A lot of home users (even fairly savvy ones) are uncomfortable with the idea of jumping to a Mac if it's a one-way trip, and if they don't like it they're stuck with this very expensive piece of hardware that is useless to them because they need to run "X".

    Now, they can buy a Mac in the knowledge that, if there is some vital piece of software (be it a custom app, or a game, or whatever) it /can/ be run. And, if they just hate Mac OS, they still have a very slick Windows box. This is even more the case with the availability of virtualization solutions--Apple now has a convenient transitional platform for switchers.

    What Apple is betting on is that the user experience on Mac OS X is enough better that, when users get to try OSX and Windows side-by-side, they'll prefer OSX. Where OS2 missed was not by offering compatibility, but by failing to offer any compelling advantage to running native. Apple offers many compelling advantages, including a spiffy look and feel, much better "ease of use", and much less risk from malware. And that is why this strategy makes sense.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    1. Re:Why this is significant: Risk Reduction by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Rubbish.

      Sorry to be so blunt but your argument fails on several counts:

      1. Since most "home users" have got Windows XP on their PCs as an OEM license, possibly with a Dell/HP/etc recovery disk for their PC, there is no way they can migrate run XP on an Apple unless they go buy a proper copy of XP on a CD at their local computer store. So, in their "unsureness" about commiting fully to Apple, not only do they have to pay for completely new hardware but also another copy of XP (in most cases). I don't see many "home user" types bothering with that at all.

      2. Let's lump all the Linux and OS X "home users" into the same group for one moment. The chances are that group of people have moved to their non-Microsoft OS of choice because they are pretty savvy with computers, have had a lot of experience with Windows in the past and have made an informed decision to use an alternative. But it is not Joe Average-types that do this, it's people with some knowledge about computers that do it.

      In reality, you're trying to hide what is, in fact, a big climb-down and U-turn by a lot of Apple users. Before, you couldn't run XP so you spent a lot of time on here detailing the superiority of OS X to XP - but now you can run it, it's a different matter...

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:Why this is significant: Risk Reduction by Fished · · Score: 1
      1. Since most "home users" have got Windows XP on their PCs as an OEM license, possibly with a Dell/HP/etc recovery disk for their PC, there is no way they can migrate run XP on an Apple unless they go buy a proper copy of XP on a CD at their local computer store. So, in their "unsureness" about commiting fully to Apple, not only do they have to pay for completely new hardware but also another copy of XP (in most cases). I don't see many "home user" types bothering with that at all.
      But what if they were going to buy new hardware anyway? And what if they /like/ Apple hardware better than the ubiquitous Dell crap?

      Surely you can see that $150 for a new copy of XP home is a small investment compared to $2000+ for a new computer comparable to the MacBook pro?

      2. Let's lump all the Linux and OS X "home users" into the same group for one moment. The chances are that group of people have moved to their non-Microsoft OS of choice because they are pretty savvy with computers, have had a lot of experience with Windows in the past and have made an informed decision to use an alternative. But it is not Joe Average-types that do this, it's people with some knowledge about computers that do it.
      And ... your point is? There are plenty of people who are fairly knowledgable about computers who are a bit nervous about buying a mac and giving up all their applications when they aren't terribly familiar with the environment. And there are enough of them to represent a sizable market segment.
      In reality, you're trying to hide what is, in fact, a big climb-down and U-turn by a lot of Apple users. Before, you couldn't run XP so you spent a lot of time on here detailing the superiority of OS X to XP - but now you can run it, it's a different matter...
      No, i still maintain that XP sucks. I have to use it for work, and I hate every minute of it. But, on the other hand, I have to run my home finances on XP because, as much as XP sucks Quicken for Mac sucks more. If I were not a rabid UNIX type, I would probably not be willing to have a whole separate computer for quicken. As it stands, I am willing to go to that trouble and expense, because I know that there is something better than XP. Now others will have the change to learn that without the risk of kissing XP goodbye permanently.
      --
      "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    3. Re:Why this is significant: Risk Reduction by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      Now you've turned this into a simple anti-XP rant. Why can't you just be honest and adult about it?

      I prefer Linux to XP, by far - I enjoy using Linux, I love tinkering with kernels & compilers & 80% of my computing time is spent using it. But, I also enjoy games & I'm used to Word, Excel & Powerpoint so when I need to knock out a spreadsheet or presentation at work, those are what I use to do it in. Perhaps when I find the time to fully explore what OpenOffice can do in comparison, then I may move to that fully - but that's for the future.

      But as far as I'm concerned, a computer is there to let me do a job as quickly as possible and I'm lucky enough to be pretty knowledgeable in both UNIX/Linux & Windows to have a wide choice of tools to choose from when I need to do something with a computer.

      So if you Apple users want to use XP then fine, no different to what I do... but then get off the "Mac OS X" is superior "high horse" and just get on and do it...

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    4. Re:Why this is significant: Risk Reduction by m_evanchik · · Score: 1

      Regarding OS/2, it does not offer an optimistic precedent for OS X.

      OS/2 ran an excellent version of DOS (virtually , if I recall , with an option to dual boot) and could run Windows by easily bydual boot. OS/2 was an operating system that far exceeded Windows 3.1 by just about every criteria, but even with the ease of running OS/2 alongside Win 3.1, OS/2 was never successful in gaining critical desktop market share.

      --

      evanchik.net

    5. Re:Why this is significant: Risk Reduction by pilkul · · Score: 1
      So, in their "unsureness" about commiting fully to Apple, not only do they have to pay for completely new hardware but also another copy of XP (in most cases). I don't see many "home user" types bothering with that at all.

      Or they can call up their friend Bob with the Windows CD and ask him to come install XP on their Mac. You underestimate the casual piracy of many home users. In this particular case many people will tell themselves, "well I only need XP to run this one application once a month, so it's not like Microsoft deserves my money anyway."

      Let's lump all the Linux and OS X "home users" into the same group for one moment.

      Whaaat? Linux still has a reputation as a hard-to-use OS for hardcore techies. Meanwhile even my grandma knows who Apple is and that they have a reputation for easy GUIs. Joe-Average types can and do switch to Apple.

    6. Re:Why this is significant: Risk Reduction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good news! OSX and Linux can run X! So its best that they got a mac.

    7. Re:Why this is significant: Risk Reduction by Fished · · Score: 1
      Now you've turned this into a simple anti-XP rant. Why can't you just be honest and adult about it?
      No, I don't like XP, and I dislike it for object reasons. I dislike it because it lacks a proper shell. I dislike it because I have to run antivirus products, which all slow my system down and get in my way. I dislike it because I find the interface clunky and unintuitive. I dislike it because I hate having to waste my time hunting for drivers, something I almost never have to do on a Mac. I dislike it because the Windows versions of iLife sort of applications are inferior and harder to use. And I don't play games (like most "adults"), and I have only found one application that I prefer on XP--namely, Quicken.

      Therefore, I run it for Quicken and Quicken only, as I made fairly clear. However, it would be significantly more convenient for me to run it on my laptop, along with everything else I do every day, without having to sacrifice the vastly superior (for me) mac environment to do so.

      It seems to me that the person who has an agenda here is /you/.

      --
      "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    8. Re:Why this is significant: Risk Reduction by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      No, I don't like XP, and I dislike it for object reasons. I dislike it because it lacks a proper shell.

      Yes, agreed. Exactly one of the reasons I prefer Linux to XP. But I thought the whole idea of OS X was completely hiding the shell from the user. I thought one of the reasons to USE OS X was because you got a slick GUI-ed OS on slick hardware. Kind of a contradiction...

      And I don't play games (like most "adults")

      Ah. This was beginning to become an interesting conversation and then you make a totally wild statement that totally killed any argument you add - presumably you said that to take a swipe at me (missed completely since I love games playing at the grand old age of 44 and hope to continue doing so long into my old age) & to, once again, put yourself into another elitist minority ("I'm an adult because I don't play games") because you fear being "mainstream" so much.

      It seems to me that the person who has an agenda here is /you/

      If you mean I have an agenda to voice my opinion intelligently then, yes, I have an agenda. I'm more than willing to listen to reasoned argument but it seems I am just speaking to someone who's prime agenda is to not be part of the mainstream but cannot explain, when questioned, why that is the case.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    9. Re:Why this is significant: Risk Reduction by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      > I dislike it because it lacks a proper shell.

      I use CYGWIN and/or Windows Services for Unix to get a propper shell under Windows.

      I find MacOS X's default terminal application a complete annoyance with the lack of ANSI support. Which even Windows's 'console' applications support.

      > I dislike it because I have to run antivirus products, which all slow my system down and get in my way.

      Then don't. Personally I just do monthly scans, I don't have a resident scanner turned on. Only sometimes will I turn it on when I suspect something is wrong.

      > I dislike it because I find the interface clunky and unintuitive.

      I tend to use the classic theme, I can't stand the 'modern' theme of windows xp or MacOS X's Default Aqua setup for that matter (waste of resources in my opinion to draw so many 'pretty' effects for the UI).

      > I dislike it because I hate having to waste my time hunting for drivers

      I never have to hunt for drivers, I do know the manufactorers, and I do know the models of hardware I have. I just goto the manufactorer's website and download the latest drivers. Of course I could just use the driver CDs I get with my hardware, but then I don't get the latest features in nview etc. Besides, manufactorers are free to donate drivers to Microsoft's windows update, provided they aren't tied in with other appications, installers. Just simple system files and .inf files.

      However it seems some manufactorers don't like doing that.

      > something I almost never have to do on a Mac.

      If you mean, included on the CD or such, you can do burn windows cds todo that. However you do have a point, with Mac's limited range of hardware, it was possible todo this.

      > I dislike it because the Windows versions of iLife sort of applications are inferior and harder to use.

      Well, iLife did more or less come after Windows had developed a lot of these things long ago. Generally it's to be expected newer releases to have better features or such (compare windows's search with the indexing service [designed originally in 1999?] to spotlight).

      Of course there are alternatives, such as google desktop, yahoo desktop. I haven't seen any alternatives on Apple systems for this.

      > And I don't play games (like most "adults")

      The horror!

      > It seems to me that the person who has an agenda here is /you/.

      AmigaOS forever!

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    10. Re:Why this is significant: Risk Reduction by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      You underestimate the casual piracy of many home users. In this particular case many people will tell themselves, "well I only need XP to run this one application once a month, so it's not like Microsoft deserves my money anyway."

      In the cases I'm seeing, it's more "I gave money to Microsoft before and they sold me a broken piece of shit that needed constant care to barely even work; fuck them, they've taken enough money from me already".

      I've rebuilt a lot of PCs in the last year for people who weren't even able to reinstall Windows themselves after a crash, mostly dial-up users. After a spyware infection took them out, successive reinstall attemps by them failed because the machine was reinfected with remote exploits before they could even finish downloading patches to close the holes (pre-SP2 XP is not a fun place to live). These people are not concerned about proper Microsoft licensing after going through that.

    11. Re:Why this is significant: Risk Reduction by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to see someone make this point, because it's been a vital one in people I've been talking to. Just this month I switched one of my relatives over to using a Mac Mini to replace their constantly broken Dell with original Win XP. Their concern before was that one day they were going to get some wacky Windows-only application that their daughter needed to use for school, and that by having a Mac instead it would cause trouble. Once I told them we could squeeze XP onto the box as well for the rare case something like that happened, sold! Before I assumed this would always be a hack; now that it's official it's an even easier sell to the endless mass of people disgusted with how much maintenance is needed to keep their Windows PCs running even for simple tasks.

  44. Re:Let me guess... bling! by stevelup · · Score: 1

    Except that they are not overpriced.

    Show me a PC with a built in 20" widescreen display, dual core CPU, half decent video controller and all the other niceties that come with owning a Mac.

    At any price?

    No?

    That's because it doesn't exist.

    On the basis that there is no lower cost alternative, it's unreasonable to call it overpriced!

  45. Impressions of Boot Camp good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I went through the XP installation process on my MacBook Pro last night. It worked perfectly. The only disappointments so far:

    - Nothing available to configure the TouchPad (no tap-click)
    - No way to right click with the touchpad/button (need an external mouse)
    - No support for lighted keyboard (I can live with this...but it makes OSX look WOW)
    - No support for auto adjusting the display for lighting conditions- this I really need
    - The MacBook Pro melted right through my legs off when running a high workload 3D demo

    So far it looks great. I downloaded some demos from ATI's developer web site to test out graphics and it looks great.

    1. Re:Impressions of Boot Camp good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      - No way to right click with the touchpad/button (need an external mouse)
      Try this.
  46. Sheezus, enough with the conceit already... by Da_Biz · · Score: 1, Funny

    From Apple's Boot Camp page:
    Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it'll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft Windows security fixes.

    While the statements are factually correct, I found that the use of the terms "plague" and "1980s" on this page to be too pretentious for my sake.

    I mostly use Windows platforms, and am looking forward to buying the first Mac system I've owned in over 11 years.

    Do I like and appreciate Mac OS and Apple hardware? Yes.

    Do I appreciate the grotesque levels of narcissism on this page? No.

    Apple, enough already. If you want some reasons to get over yourself, look at some of the hardware problems you've had with laptops in the past.

    1. Re:Sheezus, enough with the conceit already... by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      The 1980s comment about BIOS was a bit snarky, but the "plague" is perfectly appropriate. Windows IS plagued by attacks from worms and viruses and other problems. There is probably no better word for it from a marketing standpoint, and it is common language (e.g. something is plagued with problems).

    2. Re:Sheezus, enough with the conceit already... by Leon_Trotsky · · Score: 1
      look at some of the hardware problems you've had with laptops in the past.

      This is hardly a fair statement. Comparing Apple now to Apple of the mid-late 90s is like comparing apples to oranges (stand back! It's a pun!).

      -a victim of the 5300.

      --
      Ohhh! Pay Dirt! A pair of half-eaten choco-pants!
    3. Re:Sheezus, enough with the conceit already... by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      You can't really say that the word "plague" mischaracterizes the steady escalation of viruses, spyware, and other nuisances that slow many Windows machines to a halt. I can't tell you how many times I've had to fix someone's Windows machine by reformatting and reinstalling Windows because the computer is beyond help by traditional means(anti-virus software and spyware removal programs often come up short at this point, even if you can diagnose what the actual problem is). Face it, there is a pathological "decay process" built into Windows for most layusers(note I am not in any way talking about Slashdotters - I'm talking about the 70% of Windows users or so who know much much less about computers than you do.) The typical user buys the box brand new, it runs well, it's spry, it's young. After a while things start slowing down as adware and spyware accumulate. Eventually the computer gets a virus and dies. It's like Alzheimer's for computers. The difference is the Windows installation has a much shorter life expectancy than the average dementia patient.

      I am not entirely sure that this same phenomenon won't happen with Macs once Apple grabs a larger portion of the market. Already there have been worms and viruses for OS X that I've heard about. They have since turned into non-issues. It's only a matter of time and market-share before more security holes are exploited and spyware starts accumulating on the OS X hard drive. However, from experience I tend to trust Apple will be better equipped to address these issues than Microsoft is, partly because Apple knows what hardware its system runs on, understands the business importance of the tightly integrated "just works" perception of its products, and seems to keep abreast of all of the security threats that face UNIX systems and OSes in general.

    4. Re:Sheezus, enough with the conceit already... by zpok · · Score: 1

      OK, let me tell you straight. If you can look beyond Windows propaganda, you're already way ahead. It IS possible to read mac propaganda and find straight facts. What you don't want to do is let it get to you. It's advertising, it's deliberate.

      It's like buying soap. It makes you clean. End of story. Or not? Apparently, it will also make you sexy, give you that special smell, make you happy!!!!!!

      Don't look at mac users or Apple, look at your own bullshit detector and slap on a tolerance doodah.

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
    5. Re:Sheezus, enough with the conceit already... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Guess we shouldn't do the same with Microsoft then. Can't really complain about bluescreens anymore, can we?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    6. Re:Sheezus, enough with the conceit already... by ghost1911 · · Score: 1

      I agree, it was a little cold of Apple to bring on the straight disses when they released their dual-boot utility (akin to teenagers saying, lol, winbl0ws is t3h sux0rs!!!111 lol lol lol). Then again, that is pretty much the Apple style of releasing something edgy, come out, show something cool, then talk shit.

      I personally believe the snide remarks on the site are there to squelch any hate for Apple because this is honestly one step closer to Apple selling hardware that is preconfigured for Windows -- the wBook.

      --
      .: 2+2 = PI SQRT(1+N) :. All together now, what is n?
  47. A couple of things few people have mentioned... by devphaeton · · Score: 0

    1) Part of Windows' problem (i said PART) is having to support a smattering of shitty hardware with questionable drivers. Having a very limited set of hardware with well-defined and well-written drivers might make a much nicer Windows experience.

    2) Who's to say that Apple couldn't silently engineer drivers or hardware to degrade Windows performance to make OSX seem far superior? I know that /. has now turned into Apple-Can-Never-Do-Wrong fanboyism, but remember that they're still a company, companies are still profit-driven and on top of that, Apple and the Apple community tend to always have a smug and consdenscending inferiority-defense complex towards anything non-Apple.

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
    1. Re:A couple of things few people have mentioned... by Dynedain · · Score: 1
      Well, if point #1 is true (which it probably is, see other comments about being a simple Windows install because of one driver package) and if point #2 is false, then Apple will be able to make another great, disingenous marketing claim:

      "Even Windows runs better on a Mac."
      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  48. Final Nail in the Coffin for Desktop Linux by netglen · · Score: 0, Troll

    I just see the Boot Camp as the final nail for the idea of a consumer level linux desktop system.

  49. Impressive...? by jargoone · · Score: 0

    FTFA:

    All in all, Boot Camp looks like an impressive effort from Apple.

    Boot Camp is neat, but I wouldn't call it "impressive". They made it possible to install XP on an Intel system. And they did it knowing the nuances of the hardware. It's nice of them, but not techincally impressive in the least.

    WinXPonMac -- now that's impressive.

  50. Why the excitment... by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a Mac user I'm excited about being able to run Outlook for work and IE for intranet access while being able to do everything else in OS X proper.

    The reason we are excited is because we can start sneaking Macs into work right and left now without anyone noticing, since we can still get to our calendars.

    I know a number of people where I work who would bring in thier own computer just to be able to use OS X daily instead of Windows.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Why the excitment... by dbrutus · · Score: 2, Informative

      um, There's been an outlook client on the Mac since forever. The Exchange group has been maintaining it but hasn't been advertising it. If you have an exchange setup, the client disk has a hidden mac partition on it that only shows the mac client. A large number of exchange admins don't even know it exists.

    2. Re:Why the excitment... by DebianDog · · Score: 1

      Outlook and IE? What.. compared to Mail.app and Safari? This should be rated +5 FUNNY!

    3. Re:Why the excitment... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      I hear you :-) I've not really considered Mac before, but now that I could dual boot, that completely changes things. Mac's are a wonderful combination of geekiness from its kernel, and innovation and usability. It's a remarkable system with *NIX heritage. And it surely seem to have the performance.

      I have really nothing against using a Mac for my business apps, and I'm quite sure it would cover them, but it's been mostly about Windows games for me. Now I could go make a minimalist Windows install for just that and be quite happy.

      What I'm wondering about though, being a gamer, is the future support of Windows Vista with this thing. That can be important, because DirectX 10 will only be made for that OS, and although the initial games may be backwards compatible for DirectX 9 and XP at least throghout this year and maybe next, clouded, the future is.

      It would feel very reassuring to have official word on this that Apple will support Vista when that OS is done.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:Why the excitment... by rhakka · · Score: 1

      You mean, "Shows the only mac client", right? :D

    5. Re:Why the excitment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is one exchange admin who had no idea.....
      i wanna try it now.

    6. Re:Why the excitment... by databyss · · Score: 1

      Co-worker: Hey SuperKendall, why didn't you come to the meeting? Didn't you get the notification?

      SK: Oh snap! I forgot, let me reboot to check my email really quick. I was just daydreaming about how great I am.

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    7. Re:Why the excitment... by schnell · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's been an outlook client on the Mac since forever.

      Yes and no. For the past several years, MSFT has taken the position that the preferred Exchange client on the Mac is Entourage (part of the Mac Office suite). The problem is that Entourage doesn't "speak" MAPI and instead relies on a semi-kludge of synchronizing through Exchange webmail/WebDAV. It also will not work with Exchange servers older than 2000/SP2. At my office, I can use Entourage to sync nicely with my e-mail, but the calendaring functionality is completely broken, as are task lists etc. (this might be cured if you have a newer version of Exchange than we do). For those interested, Microsoft has a guide for Exchange admins with Entourage users.

      As you mentioned, there is a true Outlook client for the Mac that synchronizes natively with Exchange servers - but it was dropped in favor of Entourage years ago and hence was never Carbonized to run natively under OS X. So running the program under Classic (which isn't even an option on the Intel Macs) would be your only way of getting 100% Outlook functionality. As a result, those users on Intel Macs or those looking for true OS X solutions are very much stuck with using Windows to get the full functionality.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    8. Re:Why the excitment... by vought · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As you mentioned, there is a true Outlook client for the Mac that synchronizes natively with Exchange servers - but it was dropped in favor of Entourage years ago and hence was never Carbonized to run natively under OS X.

      I never understood this. Microsoft released this software two months before the Mac OS X public beta shipped - and two years after Apple screamed from the rooftops that Rhapsody was the future of the Mac OS.

      In other words, one of the most significant pieces of software an enterprise Mac user might need was developed on a set of APIs that were already deprecated.

      Since then, we've had to make so with running the "real" Outlook in Classic (which is a little like a racing car with two tires half-deflated) or using the annoyingly helpful Entourage, which stores it's mail in a format that seems to have been jointly developed by Vogons and Klingons. (Contrast with Apple's mbox files....)

    9. Re:Why the excitment... by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      Outlook may be downright awful, but it is the main groupware client at a *lot* of companies. Calendaring and contact lists that will sync with a BlackBerry are the big features a lot of companies seem to use Outlook for.

      IE is crap and should never be used, however.

    10. Re:Why the excitment... by Computerguy5 · · Score: 1

      Greetings from my Powerbook on the 6th Floor. :-)

    11. Re:Why the excitment... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      As a Mac user I'm excited about being able to run Outlook for work and IE for intranet access while being able to do everything else in OS X proper.

      The reason we are excited is because we can start sneaking Macs into work right and left now without anyone noticing, since we can still get to our calendars.

      And can you explain how you're going to check email and get to your calendars in Windows, at the same time as doing everything else in OS X?

  51. At last: small systems hardware for WinXP users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been eyeing Mac Minis since they were introduced, wondering just why the hell some PC builder didn't sell something similar. Yes, I know about mini-ITX systems and am using one now but in my experience they aren't as small, quiet, or powerful as the Mac Minis. Looks like I can finally buy a Mac Mini to run Windows XP and, maybe sometimes if I feel the inclination to experiment, OS X.

    1. Re:At last: small systems hardware for WinXP users by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I've been eyeing Mac Minis since they were introduced, wondering just why the hell some PC builder didn't sell something similar.

      Actually, AOpen does sell something simular to the Mini. And by simular, I mean almost identical looking.

      Check it out here.

  52. I don't know what to think... by fak3r · · Score: 1

    After reading the article I don't know what to think; I've had Linux/OS X only at my house for years, with FreeBSD handling server duties. The iBook has always had this 'mistique' (sp?) that I couldn't describe, even when it runs Linux (which is about 80% of the time) -- but now this? I could have a Mac and run OS X, OS 9, Win XP, Ubuntu Linux and FreeBSD - all on the same machine. I just don't know how I feel about it, and I posted about it today hoping to stir some sense into it all. I know, in the grand scheme of life it's very, very, very minor, but this *was Apple* for crying out loud! What are they going to be in a year, in 5 years, in 10 years? I wonder.

    --
    fak3r.com
    1. Re:I don't know what to think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, OS9 won't run on Intel Macs.

  53. So, this is what Windows is good for? by jcr · · Score: 1

    Makes a dandy game loader, just like DOS did. ;-)

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:So, this is what Windows is good for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i am gonna sue you... u made me laugh so hard i shit my pants... OMG U ARE SO FUNNY!!! I hope you can make more jokes while u stroke my cock.

  54. M90 is far better equipped than MacBook by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    Why compare dissimilar systems? The M90 is a 17" notebook with a workstation graphics chip (NVIDIA® Quadro FX 1500M, 256MB (dedicated), OpenGL [Included in Price] )

    The lies are people who use the ignorance of others to make their point. Anyone who took a second to look at the Dell site would know that the two machines don't compare.

    The M70 set to the specs of a loaded Macbook is cheaper by at least $200 before the commoningly found Dell discounts. The nice this is that with the Dell you can push the memory to 4gb and you get a workstation style graphics cards.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:M90 is far better equipped than MacBook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      coimmmomnighllyly

      moron.

    2. Re:M90 is far better equipped than MacBook by chaim79 · · Score: 1

      Actually going side by side trying to get the same options the prices come out to:

      • Macbook Pro: $2799
      • Dell Precision M90: $3119 (after a $175 discount)

      Now it's true that the screen is different (15.4 Macbook VS 17 Dell) and you can push the Dell PC to much higher specs, but still I think the Macbook wins on this one, even if it's just barely.

      It is interesting to note the memory options on the Dell notebook, first off all of them are 2 DIMMs, meaning that after you grab your memory option you can't upgrade it without throwing out your existing ram, on the MacBook the standard ram is 1GB and 1 DIMM, easy expansion option there! The other thing is that the option on the Dell for 4GB of ram is a cost of $2560 just for the upgrade!!! that's almost the base price for the whole Laptop! Unless you have an application that absolutly needs 4GB of ram no-one will be buying that option.

      Another interesting option is the included software, the Mac includes iLife 06 on all it's models, this includes Garageband, iMovie, iDVD, and a few other great apps for editing audio and video. The closest you can get from Dell is the Adobe Production Studio Standard for an additional $799. I have no doubt that the Adobe option is a more professional product then iLife, but if we are looking at your average parent wanting to edit video of thier kid that's the only option that Dell provides. The Mac defenetly wins on that one.

      More points for Mac, Bluetooth and Wireless are built in, for the Dell you have to select options for both, and only the Bluetooth can be built in, the wireless is actually a card that you have to plug in to use. Also the M90 has no built in video option, and no add-on option for video

      One final point (in my scoring) for the Mac, it includes ALL of it's software on media (you get the install CD/DVDs for everything) on the Dell it's a seperate option that you have to check, by default you get it all on a 'recovery partition' on the harddrive. That's one of the worst ideas they ever came out with, not only does it use up some of your hard drive space for nothing, but it's also very easy for a virus or user error to corrupt (and yes, I've seen a PC with no media where the OS and the recovery partition were toast, they were totaly SOL on that one). Now granted the option to get your media from Dell is free, it's still an added option that you must check in order to get the media, and if you forget it's a major hassle to get it afterwords.

      So on those counts the Mac wins over the Dell Precision M90, now you add the capablility for the Mac to dual-boot or VM into WinXP and the Mac OS X's Stability, usability, and performance, and the M90 is blown away.

      Now all I have to do is save up enough pennies.....

      The Specs: Dell Precision M90
      Core Duo 2.16 CPU
      17inch LCD
      1GB SDRAM 2DIMM (upgradable to 2GB for $260 or 4GB for $2560)
      100 GB 7200RPM Hard Drive
      8xDVD+/-RW (options are for either DVDRW or CDRW, not both together)
      NVIDIA Quadro FX 1500M, 256MB (upgradeable to 2500M, 512MB for $249)
      Dell Wireless 1390 802.11g mini-card (upgradeable to intell 3945 802.11a/g for $29)
      Dell Wireless 350 Bluetooth Module


      The Specs: Apple MacBook Pro
      Core Duo 2.16 CPU
      15.4 inch LCD
      1GB SDRAM 1DIMM (upgradable to 2GB for $300)
      100 GB 7200RPM Hard Drive
      SuperDrive DVD+/-RW/CD-RW
      ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 256MB
      Built-in 802.11g and Bluetooth
      --
      DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
      AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
      Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
  55. Over-reactions. Only small % will dual boot. by guidryp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You have to love the responses to this.

    Type A: Woo who! Apple is going to the moon, and taking over the PC market. Brilliant... (stock market in this camp as well).

    Type B: Apple just doomed themselves, OSX will die now...

    Hmmm. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between? Which do I think it is closer?

    First off, The vast majority will never dual boot. So this will not create a mass movement one way or the other. (A much bigger impact will be the virtualization program announced.

    The only real impact will be those potential switchers who didn't want to abandon windows. A safety net. And the bet is that once they switch they will be doing more and more mac and less and less windows. So a small net win. I put myself in this camp.

    Negative possabilities: Game devs will drop mac since they can dual boot. Well most people won't dual boot, I think they will simply watch sales of mac games. If Macs pick up market share, someone will want to exploit that with native games.

    So I think this is a net positive, just not on the scale most think. This is of interest to me, but I am a small part of the market. Now where is is my Conroe Mac?

  56. Mac mini benchmarks by SilentChris · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've started benchmarking this morning on a Mac Mini. Now, granted, I don't expect it to blow me away in performance, but in 3DMark05 it scored around 600 and didn't complete all the tests. My Dell laptop (nVidia Go 6800) scores around 3000 and my desktop (nVidia 7800 GTX) around 8000. Nearly all of that is due to POS integrated graphics, but I was at least hoping it'd get around half the laptop's score.

    Here's a link:

    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?c=1569427_1

    In PCMark05 it compared more favorably. This is a comparison between my rig, a Mac Mini and a blade server we have at work. The blade server didn't totally complete the test because of its graphics card. In some cases the Mac beat my rig (stuff like media encoding/decoding), which is surprising.

    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?c=1569427_2

    And I understand I'm comparing Apples and oranges (literally). I've heard Macbook Pro users are floored by the performance in Windows of popular games, and I'm looking to get my hands on one.

    I will say, without a doubt, Apple has the easiest to use dualboot installer I've ever seen. Getting Grub et all to work without frying partitions in Linux has always been a pain. With Apple's, couple clicks and I'm done.

    1. Re:Mac mini benchmarks by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      what would possess you to believe that the mac mini would be a gaming machine?

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    2. Re:Mac mini benchmarks by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      Did I ever say it was?

      The only thing I said is I expected it to get closer to the laptop score for 3DMark. Given that it uses mostly laptop components, it should've at least been in the 1500 range (and finishing that one batch of tests would not have put it much over 1000). Most likely the graphics drivers need a little more optimization.

    3. Re:Mac mini benchmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I understand I'm comparing Apples and oranges (literally). Really? You've got some of both fruits sitting there in front of you and you're ticking off the differences?

  57. Business Model for Apple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have though apple would be pushing this in the other direction by making their OS runnable on standard PC hardware. If this were done it would completely change their market and get them a MUCH MUCH larger peice of the pie. If mac OSX were runnable on standard hardware people would be able to buy the OS and simply toss it on the hardware they already have. This would allow them to become an Software company and stop dealing with the overpriced hardware, which was one of the two things stopping them from completely steam rolling the market. The second issue is video games for the Mac which, while in creasing in numbers, still lag far enoug behind the PC market to really boost their sells if they could.....

    enough.. what I'm really saying is why arent they releasing the OS to run on any x86 hardware....

    1. Re: Business Model for Apple.. by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Because they make more money on hardware sales, apparently.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  58. Cool, but I still won't buy one to dual boot by paulxnuke · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Another vote for virtualization! I currently have a bunch of Windows versions loaded in VirtualPC for Windows (test OS's) and I see two major advantages:
    • Backing up a Windows install or "reinstalling" means copying a file; no rebooting for Ghost, etc.
    • The Mac would always be there for anything I want that Windows can't do. I don't even set up Windows for internet use unless I'm developing internet-enabled software: I'd disable the network drivers if I didn't need to share files on my local (inside my firewall) network, but no Windows box is ever exposed to or used on the Internet except when testing something. That policy + unlimited complete backups of the OS saves me no end of problems.

    So far I've found no insurmountable problems with this, including performance (I don't play games, though.) The day this is available on MacTel I'll buy one.

  59. Re:1280x720? by amyhughes · · Score: 1

    1280x720 (720P) is a format that a lot of flat-panel TVs understand (including mine). He's probably playing Doom on a very large monitor. In Windows. On a Mac. What a strange world we live in.

  60. Re:Let me guess... bling! by (A)*(B)!0_- · · Score: 1
    "Show me a PC with a built in 20" widescreen display, dual core CPU, half decent video controller and all the other niceties that come with owning a Mac."
    Why does anyone like having a built-in display? 20" of widescreen is nice but I'd much prefer it to be a separate entity. Where's the benefit? If the monitor is separate, I can go out and buy a 30" monitor in a year and swap out the 20" one.
  61. When is Dell going to buy MAC? by Satanboy · · Score: 1

    I think Dell buying MAC and Duke Nukem Forever being released will officially begin the icing over of hell.

      - - - it could happen - - -

    1. Re:When is Dell going to buy MAC? by BurntNickel · · Score: 1

      I think Dell buying MAC and Duke Nukem Forever being released will officially begin the icing over of hell.

      Why would DELL buy Macerich Co. (MAC)?

      --
      And the knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them...
    2. Re:When is Dell going to buy MAC? by Satanboy · · Score: 1

      ok wiseass, macintosh brand computers, and no I don't mean apple, just the mac brand

  62. Soiling Pants by Giggles+Of+Doom · · Score: 1

    I fail to see why getting Windows to dual boot on x86 is such a HUGE deal. Yeah yeah yeah, you can run on OSX, Linux, and Windows on the same machine. But still, people are soiling themselves over a BOOTLOADER. Come on, how about getting OSX to run on more generic x86 hardware so I don't have to spend tons of cash on Apple hardware?

    --
    "A coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave but one."
    1. Re:Soiling Pants by CottonEyedJoe · · Score: 1

      Rumor has it *wink wink* this is already possible... What do you want, official apple support?

      >so I don't have to spend tons of cash on Apple hardware?

      Doh! Associates in Business Adminstration from Online U?

  63. Don't overestimate dual boot by JamesR2 · · Score: 1

    While I love this announcement, its not the dual boot part. Dual booting sucks ... remember when you had to restart DOS to another config all the time? This is worse. Pain when you realize ... sheesh, the app I want to run now is on the other OS. I believe this to be transitional to the Apple XP Shell which makes XP look like a Mac, including Cocoa/Carbon or whatever that stuff is.

  64. Re:WILL SOMEBODY MOD THAT COCKSUCKER DOWN?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, I talk up a product that I (and many, many others) have been waiting for for YEARS, and now all of a sudden it's marketing?

    It's even worse. Marketing guys (people who get paid to talk this shit) call you an evangalist. Early adopters who will do nothing but praise a technology that has no real foothold and relies on people like you to create it by trading your street cred for it.

    Cheers, oh and Welcome to the Thunderdome bitch.

  65. awesome by mu22le · · Score: 1

    thank you

  66. Poll by feranick · · Score: 1

    How many of the people that tried Boot Camp used a legal copy of Windows? And by legal I don't mean using the OEM CD that came with your Windows box (which you can't use in other than that box).

    Honesty in the answer is appreciated.

    1. Re:Poll by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      I thought I'd better say something here just to give you a small mote of excitement as you actually see a reply to your (very pertinent) question.

      However, I wouldn't expect any more replies - always goes very quiet on Slashdot when the subject gets on to legal copies of Microsoft anything...

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  67. Re:Dual boot? How about something off-topic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. I can just picture you sitting at the keyboard, seeing the red header with "Apple" at the begining. I can see the droll forming around the corners of your mouth. You're wearing an unneeded name tag that just says "Giant Douche".

    I'm all about writing up big posts to support the topic at hand, but then there's you. You write up a huge post and spam refresh to make sure you get your first post, and when I finally get done reading your drivel, I realize it has hardly anything to do with how well dual booting XP on mac hardware. Does anyone really care about your hard-on for this software? Have you ever had experience dual booting XP on an Intel based Mac using the software Apple released earlier this week? You haven't? Good to hear. STFU and get back to work. You're wasting my god damn tax dollars. Thanks.

  68. Re:Not Macheads by IndigoParadox · · Score: 0

    I would be, if virtualization supported 3D applications. Until that time, why bother switching from my PC? I would still be in Windows all the time anyway. (I play a lot of games and it hardly seems worth it just to reboot to use Opera in Mac OS X to check my mail and stuff when I could do that in Windows too.) I love OS X but it's just not for me and I don't think I'm the only one in that situation. =O/

  69. exactly by dmarcoot · · Score: 0

    Your absolutely correct, especially now with leopard around corner, and Vista off on distance of 2007. And upgrade of windows which will force many to buy brand spanking new hardware to run an OS which is basically 10.4 at best.

    Apple has a perfect storm here to get more hardware sales while once again leap frogging Windows on features yet to be announced.

    there is absolutely no incentive for apple to ship an OS for Dell boxes.

  70. 20 inch iMac + resolution by Bradee-oh! · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I tried it yesterday and it worked great on my 20 in iMac. Tried a few games that ran beautifully.

    However the drivers didn't seem to let me set the native resolution of the display... the 20in display is at 1680x1050 but the highest res allowed in the windrivers was 14xx X 10xx or something I forget. And none of the available resolutions even matched up with the ratio of this screen so no matter what the desktop was stretched one way or another. Anyone figure this out?

    --
    "This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
    1. Re:20 inch iMac + resolution by atreus42 · · Score: 1

      You could try installing PowerStrip or MultiRes, two small and free windows programs that allow you to run non-standard resolutions.

  71. Karma Whore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you already said the same thing verbatim at: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=182383&cid=150 76310

  72. one thing to remember: by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    iirc the academic and corprate licenses for windows are upgrade/downgrade only. So to do this legitimately its very likely you will end up paying retail for windows.

    that will add another significant whack on top of the apple premium for the hardware.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  73. Puzzled by Gorkamecha · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Help me here, as one who does not have the apple logo tattooed on the back of his head. I'm on "mac" hardware (now intel based), running windows XP with the option of switching back to the Apple software.....but the programs I want to run are in the windows side of things. How is this anything but a blow to the Temple of Apple? How long will it be before companies stop making Apple versions of any program (why spend your resources on a two prong approach?)...And if you have to switch less and less to the Apple OS, why do you need that OS at all???

    1. Re:Puzzled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How long will it be before companies stop making Apple versions of any program (why spend your resources on a two prong approach?)
      This is a common misunderstanding of the Mac software market. Other than the products from the biggie software houses like Microsoft and Adobe, there are very few apps on the Mac that are "ported" from Windows.

      This is primarily because most Mac users are quite finicky about the look and feel of the apps they use, and most Windows programmers are clueless about what Mac users want an app to behave like.

      I consider myself to be a "power-user" and use over 50 apps on my Mac. Of these, only 3 (Mathematica, Excel, Word) could be considered to be Windows port (and AFAIK, Mathematica is done on Xcode.)

      ...And if you have to switch less and less to the Apple OS, why do you need that OS at all???
      Keep in mind that most of us who use Macs have made a conscious decision not to use Windows (i.e., it is not a default decision.) So the ability to boot Windows on Macs really does not change much for most Mac users. Bootcamp is the training wheel for "switchers" and the option to run Windows is simply providing a safety blanket for them.

      Apple is looking at it from the other side, i.e., - "If you have to switch less and less (or not at all) to Windows, why do you need that OS at all?".

    2. Re:Puzzled by argent · · Score: 1

      the programs I want to run are in the windows side of things

      Then use Windows.

      For me, the programs I want to run are UNIX and Macintosh programs. There's a few programs I *have* to run occasionally on the Windows side, but they're rare enough I might boot to Windows once a week.

      What this does is that it gives me an opportunity to get a Mac for my next work laptop. Now, I'd rather have a Thinkpad running OS X, but putting up with the quirky Mac hardware to get away from the dorky Microsoft software is worth it.

  74. The big picture by rjschwarz · · Score: 1

    Vista is late, when it arrives there will be a lot of people buying new computers. Apple will have a dual-bootable system that has been tested for nearly a year by that point. This also gives Microsoft a bit of time to tweak their Vista code to make sure they give the best possible show on head-to-head OS comparisons by then.

    The move/timing is brilliant and the only serious chance Apple has to regain marketshare. Fight Dell, not Windows.

    1. Re:The big picture by zestymonkey · · Score: 0
      Fight Dell, not Windows.


      This is funny, as not too many years ago the cry of agitated Apple acolytes was "Fight Microsoft, not IBM!"

      But you're right. Playing nice with Microsoft while sending the evil eye to Dell and HP/Compaq is probably the best move right now.
      --

      return;
  75. Re:Bullshit by dbrutus · · Score: 1

    The cell processor is plenty powerful, it's just not optimized to minimize heat. Intel sliced 2 years off its netburst architecture (which apple mercilesly mocked for being too hot for years) and shifted to one that was optimized for low heat. It's an easy call for Apple if the engineers are in charge. I guess they are in charge.

  76. Rear Window by HotButteredHampster · · Score: 1

    Put the sticker in the rear window. If you have tinting, it really sets it off nicely!

    HBH

    --
    "Smart is sexy." -- D. Scully ("War of the Coprophages")
  77. MS Will easily put a quash on this by itage · · Score: 1

    90% of Windows XP is obtained from OEMs, like Dell, Gateway, IBM etc. And the licensing for the OEM version of Windows XP is that the OS is STRICLY tied to the hardware it was purchased on. Therefore the only way boot camp will work legally is for them to use ~retail~ copies of Windows XP Pro, which are few and far in between. Of course, this could spark people into being buying retail versions of Windows in the future as they want to have the bootcamp possibility. We'll see. But you'd think MS would be putting out some warnings right about now of oem users not being able to use Apple's bootcamp. That would be interesting. But who knows, maybe MS will just let the users, and then put the hammer down later

  78. Yup it's the graphics. by Imazalil · · Score: 2, Informative

    the mini has the intel 950 (i think) which while being their best integrated graphics chip is still a very very mediocre graphics chip. There is no way to compare it to a 6800go a pretty high end graphics chip for laptops. The 950 is something like a geforce 2 with some pixel shaders thrown in along wiht intels so so drivers. Mind you it has some nice accelaration for video and 2d, but definately a joke for 3d. I imagine that in just about every other benchmark the mini is pretty close to your laptop, but it is the graphics that are holding it back in 3dmark.

    I would be curious how it compares to laptops that use the 950 as well. even more curious if anyone has windows media centre running on a mini (with tuner and external hdd).

    Im.

  79. great stuff by theheff · · Score: 1

    I'm have the Apple Boot Camp software installed on this machine right now. Setup was easy as ever... just make sure your CD key isn't written on the CD because you can't actually eject externally...

    As far as the hardware supported, it's a dream. Everything seems supported on my 17-inch G5 iMac. The video card is supported perfectly, bluetooth is enabled and working, sound, all external devices, everything is working and supported well. If you never saw the mac exterior of the machine, and only the screen, you'd never even be able to tell that it was a Mac (except for the stellar performance).

  80. additionally . . . by ElephanTS · · Score: 1

    Also Mac The Ripper and Roxio Popcorn for DVD rip'n'squash. Flip4Mac WMV to play wmv in QT player. Happy days!

    --
    spoonerize "magic trackpad"
  81. Your doing it Mac-Backwards by pocketstheclown · · Score: 0

    So...if I have an old Intel box, and Mac OS now runs on Intel, then I should be able to intall the Mac OS on my Intel box. If it can be done. Why not encourage people to do a dual boot install of Mac OS on their existing Intel boxes instead, thats the challenge I would rather see that than the other way around.

  82. Dual boot as standard option by klubar · · Score: 1

    How long will it be until Apple ships Macs with dual boot pre-installed? It would be a fairly cheap option to add--OEM's get Windows for about $75 (or less, depending on quantity).

    Will Windows be sold in Apple stores alongside various other Windows software?

    What happens if the Mac users decide they prefer Windows?

    <joke>A Texan tasted some sushi and said that if you threw it on the grill it would taste just like fish. A geek looked at a Mac and said if you installed Windows it would run just like a PC.</joke>

  83. You get what you pay for... by eltonito · · Score: 0
    There are software differences (which are solved for $1000 for what essentially boiled down to running OS X.

    Most Apples include the latest iLife suite when they are sold, so you when you attempt to calculate out "software differences" you should be sure to include those. How much do hobbyist quality video production, audio production, photo editing/cataloging and DVD authoring suites cost for Windows? How much does a PDF creator cost for Windows?

    Then there are minor annoyances where Windows is simply missing pretty useful tools for real users. DevTools? A compiler? A full suite of enterprise capable network daemons such as http, ftp, telnet, ftp, ssh? All of these ship with Mac OS X - last I checked the XP Pro I run at work doesn't include any of them. How much is IIS these days?

    1. Re:You get what you pay for... by Zathrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How much do hobbyist quality video production, audio production, photo editing/cataloging and DVD authoring suites cost for Windows?

      $99. Adobe Photoshop/Primere Elements Bundle. Yes, that's street price.

      You can cobble stuff together from OSS/Free, but it's nowhere near the quality and ease of use of either iLife or Adobe, so I simply don't recommend trying. Particularly for the video editing/DVD authoring bit (although, on that front, Nero is decent and can be had for $40).

      How much does a PDF creator cost for Windows?

      Uh... free?

      DevTools? A compiler?

      Both downloadable for free, from either MS, Cygwin, or MinGW. But I do Unix development, so it's not of much interest to me. A decent shell is, but that's what Cygwin's for.

      A full suite of enterprise capable network daemons such as http, ftp, telnet, ftp, ssh?

      IIS is included in Pro (but not installed by default). As is a telnet daemon (not enabled by default under SP2).

      FTP and ssh daemons are freely available online if you wanted them. And XP's remote desktop is superior to VNC (admittedly, one of the rare cases of XP being better), so I guess that's why you didn't mention it.

      Are you seriously trying to say all of that is worth $1000+? I can replace the software for under $200, as I mentioned. Most of the extra functionality can be downloaded for free.

    2. Re:You get what you pay for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much do hobbyist quality video production, audio production, photo editing/cataloging and DVD authoring suites cost for Windows? How much does a PDF creator cost for Windows?

      Most of these products come with DVD burner (at least video-specific) - Nero bundles.
      PDF Creator? How many free offerings out there do you want me to count? Do a search on the web - don't be lazy.

      Then there are minor annoyances where Windows is simply missing pretty useful tools for real users. DevTools? A compiler? A full suite of enterprise capable network daemons such as http, ftp, telnet, ftp, ssh? All of these ship with Mac OS X - last I checked the XP Pro I run at work doesn't include any of them. How much is IIS these days?


      Visual Studio 2005 Express is free. So is whole Platform SDK that comes with the same compiler Visual Studio uses. IIS is free. It includes HTTP, FTP, Telnet, SMTP and NNTP. SSH can be downloaded for free, no?

      Anything else?

    3. Re:You get what you pay for... by eltonito · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Zathrus - Cool. I used to be a major Windows user, but for the past couple of years I've been using my Mac almost exclusively. I was not aware that XP Pro had IIS available on the disc but not necessarily the default install. The Dell I'm assigned at work apparently skipped that install and I need those services, so I've all but abandoned it and just use the Mac.

      I realize there are downloadable equivalents to just about everything, but the last thing I want to do everytime I have to wipe the drive on this Dell (only twice in a year and a half) is go through and download or install tons of software that I need/like to use. I've had miserable experiences with Windows over the last 5 years, which lead me to Linux and eventually the Mac.

      The Apple is more expensive on paper and up front than the Dell, but it's worth every penny to me for reasons I can't entirely quantify. It's the first computer since my C-64 that I just plain enjoyed.

    4. Re:You get what you pay for... by shmlco · · Score: 1

      "How much is IIS these days?"

      IIS is part of XP and free, though it may not be installed by default. Unless you have a server version, however, it's limited to managing a single "home" website. This is done mostly to prevent people from using the home/pro products to run servers.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  84. This is what I'm betting Apple is seeing. by SithLordOfLanc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Envision this if you will:

    Mac dealers (not apple store, but indies) will soon start offering Dual boot systems for sale, I'll bet. This is great you say, windows users can now get the elegance of Mac hardware. Billy G is probably saying that very thing right now. He's probably thinking that this situation opens up a whole new install base, just as Bill H states below. So a Mac user goes into an indie dealer and says," You mean that I can buy this Mac Mini with Windows for only $599.99? (that's $499.99 for the Mini and $99.00 for the XP home OEM)? I'll take it." Great, there's another Windows bootable sold.

    However, look at it from Jobs' view. Sure, I'll bet lots of Windows users will start using Mac systems. Problem is, they're going to see that tiger icon EVERYTIME THEY BOOT THE SYSTEM. Sooner or later, they'll get curious.

    They're going to click on it.

    Some will use it.

    Some won't look back.

    Let's say that the user above was a Windows user that just wanted the sexy SFF box. They try using Tiger and decide that they like it better. The next Mac Mini they buy will only cost them $499.99 ($499.99 for the mini and $0.00 for the Windows XP they decided they didn't need.) Uh-oh, there's a lost bootable sale. Uh-oh, there's lots of lost bootable sales since the useful life of any computer is only a few years.

    We all know that for whatever reason, current Mac users are fanatics. We also know that every single current Mac user has a job, or a friend or a family member with a Windows PC. They've seen Windows. They won't be the ones switching over. I haven't seen Tiger yet. I expect that neither have people like my dad and most of my co-workers. I've heard that Tiger is easier to use. What happens when people that previously had no choice, suddenly do?

    I think Apple is betting that this happens.

    1. Re:This is what I'm betting Apple is seeing. by pammon · · Score: 1
      Mac dealers (not apple store, but indies) will soon start offering Dual boot systems for sale, I'll bet

      Apple has always allowed resellers to sell dual boot configurations.

      It's Microsoft that disallows dual booting. But they might grant a special exception for Macs.

  85. A Great Day for Science by philcolby · · Score: 1

    Like others in the /. community, I am in the research area. I am a physician in a cardiovascular imaging lab. The university-wide computing solution has been Dell-branded desktops for years. Save for a few niche groups, most researchers here are Windows-tied. Part of our problem is that many of the developers of imaging and analysis software packages have no desire to support OSX (nor do they plan to based on my phone calls). The dual boot option is very exciting for us because it allows for a possible laboratory wide migration to a powerful platform for our primary tasks. ProSolv (cardiac imaging analysis) and SAS (statistical analysis) would be still tied to the XP partition. If a virtualization solution that could perform as well as the XP native platform existed, that would likely be the final impetus to switch- it would be somewhat cumbersome to keep switching between OSs. (BTW- no one should suggest SPSS Base for OSX because SPSS blows).

  86. My, this IS a cliquey little in club, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Has anyone else noticed the moderation in this discussion topic so far?

    Say something "nice" about Apple - get modded up.

    Create some stupid, watery explanation as to why Apple users have, all of a sudden, done a COMPLETE U-TURN after years of looking down on Windows - get modded up.

    I guess now all you Apple fanboys are in one place, now's the time for you to get on your knees and get Uncle Steve to walk round with his todger out so you can all get a quick go on his pink oboe!

    And they said Linux users were zealots!!!!

  87. not long by Run4yourlives · · Score: 1

    The dual boot option will be standard in Leopard, so they say.

    1. Re:not long by zpok · · Score: 1

      I think what poster meant was, how long until we see standard dual boot WITH Windows already installed. I bet a lot of shops will offer that option. Why not? It means a guaranteed sale of Windows on top of a mac box. Else shopper will get curious, get a copy and do it himself anyway.

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
  88. 17" 1680x1050??? by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    That sounds tiny... Thats the same resolution of my 20" Apple monitor. And its the same rez as the Dell monitor of the same size. Apple keeps their pixels per square inch standard across the board, which is nice if your using a laptop with a desktop display. For the record i'm not, mines plugged into my card in my home build gaming rig. And before anyone says anything, i got it before any other companies were offering >17" widescreen displays, if it had been a year later i would have gotten the Dell version. Hell, the 20" Apple is the same price as the 24" Dell right now.:(

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    1. Re:17" 1680x1050??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Apple keeps their pixels per square inch standard across the board, which is nice if your using a laptop with a desktop display.

      This is nonsense: 1) they've been selling 12" and 14" iBooks with the same resolution for years, and 2) last year they increased the 15" and 17" PB resolutions without changing the screen size.

    2. Re:17" 1680x1050??? by the_maddman · · Score: 1

      Ha! You should see my R3000Z. It's a 15" Widescreen at 1960x1200. Only paid $700 for it, now if only the video was upgradable from the GeForce4MX.

  89. New way to buy a "naked" PC? by gcanyon · · Score: 1

    Given that Microsoft doesn't want PC manufacturers to sell naked boxes -- http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/05/142521 6 -- this makes a Mac a good way to buy a PC without Windows.

    1. Re:New way to buy a "naked" PC? by SithLordOfLanc · · Score: 1

      It won't be naked. It will have OSX on it.

  90. How about Classic Mac virtualization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Getting windows apps to run at near native spead in a virtual environment would be a great plus for the intel based macs. But I still need/want to run classic mac apps. I can (and do) run old apps on my G5.

    I certainly hope that apple brings that functionality to the intel macs. I still have files in old formats that I still access from time to time. being able to fire up the original app is very helpfull.

    1. Re:How about Classic Mac virtualization by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      No, Apple will not bring Classic to the Intel Macs. Classic is dead. But there is a solution:

      SheepShaver is a classic Mac emulator:

      http://www.gibix.net/dokuwiki/en:projects:sheepsha ver

      It needs a Mac ROM (which can be gotten from an iMac firmware update that can be downloaded from Apple), and a Mac OS 9.1 image. It's a little tedious to set up the first time, but once done, it's very portable and can be used on any Intel-based Mac.

  91. I'll answer by Run4yourlives · · Score: 1

    It's zero.

    Nobody.

    Nada. ...which is slightly less than the number of legal windows copies on standard PC platforms.

    1. Re:I'll answer by feranick · · Score: 1

      Good to know. I always thought that Mac geeks were always very "legal" in handling software. Oh well, not much different really...

  92. Re:WILL SOMEBODY MOD THAT COCKSUCKER DOWN?! by Single+GNU+Theory · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have nothing whatsoever to do with Parallels in any way, shape, or form. What, I talk up a product that I (and many, many others) have been waiting for for YEARS, and now all of a sudden it's marketing?

    You posted nearly the same paragraph in two threads on consecutive days. It smells a lot like marketing, even if that's not your stated intention:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=182273&cid=150 65706

    Virtualization company Parallels [parallels.com] announced that it will be bringing its Parallels Workstation virtualization product to Intel-based Macs [techworld.com]. Parallels is a hypervisor-based (with a kernel module) virtual machine solution already shipping for Windows and Linux, and is the first desktop virtualization product to support Intel VT/Vanderpool CPU "partitioning". It's also only $50. Parallels also has a long list of officially supported guest OSes [parallels.com], and that's just the ones that are *officially* supported. So either way, we'll have a nice dual boot solution AND a nice virtualization solution!

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=182379&cid=150 76276

    Virtualization company Parallels [parallels.com] announced a public beta of its Parallels Workstation virtualization product to Intel-based Macs [parallels.com] (direct download [parallels.com]. Parallels is a quasi-hypervisor-based (with a kernel module) virtual machine solution already shipping for Windows and Linux, and is the first desktop virtualization product to support Intel VT/Vanderpool CPU "partitioning". Once out of beta, It will also be only $50. Parallels also has a long list of officially supported guest OSes [parallels.com], and that's just the ones that are *officially* supported. It will likely run any x86-based OS you throw at it.

    --
    Little Debian: America's #1 Snack Distro!
  93. VS may be free by theolein · · Score: 1

    But you have to friggin download it first, and how many are going to stumble across it by chance?

    That is as much a BS argument as the Mac guy who doesn't know that IIS comes with XP Pro.

    1. Re:VS may be free by Creedo · · Score: 1

      And if you actually need it, you would know to download it.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
  94. Mac fanboys become Windows users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly, all that dual booting is going to do is make Macheads use Windows. Rebooting just so you can view your pictures in iPhoto or surf the web using Safari is a pain. They'll probably just end up doing most of their stuff in Windows and that will be the end of OSX. Jobs will announce the move to Windows and fanboys will jump for joy as the reality distortion factor sinks in. I've seen it too many times with Apple for it not to happen.

  95. And MS is holy.....? by theolein · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Get over yourself. The steaming piles of crap that MS spouts with respect to Linux, or innovation, or just about anything coming out of the mouth of Ballmer makes Apple looks like Benedictine monks.

  96. I am by wadey+fh · · Score: 1

    The university I go to allows each student a free copy of Windows XP (as well as Visual Studio). I just used that to install and it's working perfectly.

  97. That wasn't my experience by Fished · · Score: 1
    I tried OS/2 on several occasions. I found it slow and clunky, and whenever I would complain the OS/2 zealots would respond with a barage of alterations to the config.sys. And it may have been better than Windows 3.1, but it wasn't appreciably better than Windows '95 from my perspective as a user. The hardware requirements were high, the support was lousy, and the platform was always marginal at best.

    In contrast, the mac offers significant advantages over XP, and few who have used OSX for a few days would willingly go back.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    1. Re:That wasn't my experience by m_evanchik · · Score: 1

      Compared to Win '95, OS/2 wasn't much. But OS/2 2.0 came out in 1992, so even with a three-year head start over Win '95, OS/2 was never able to gain market share over the far inferior Windows 3.1 .

      It would be nice to see Apple steal Microsoft's thunder with a good dual boot, but OS/2 is not a promising precedent, even with a big head start over the next version of Microsoft Windows. The computer market has changed a lot over more than ten years, and I happen to think that the dual-boot will help Apple, but I gotta call 'em as I see 'em, and this particular case argues against Apple.

      --

      evanchik.net

  98. Perhaps better than you think by theolein · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apple might very well testing the waters to see what the result of this Boot Camp experiment is. If it turns out that Windows users are turning to Apple's OS in droves, then Apple might be tempted to sell OSX to a number of selected partners, probably in select markets (using Lenovo as a sales partner in China and someone else in India for example, both markets where Apple's prices are usually too high for general adoption)

  99. Has Anyone Tried Installing Linux After Boot Camp? by NetFu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Has anyone tried installing or even booting up off of a Linux install CD/DVD after installing Boot Camp?

    I heard a few people complaining here on Slashdot that Apple is ignoring the Linux community with this Boot Camp beta, although a lot of people pointed out that a few distros already had EFI boot capability.

    I got a Mac Mini last night, installed Boot Camp, installed and reinstalled WinXP several times trying to figure out what partitions would work for my purposes. That took until well past midnight, so I'm finishing up setup for OS X and WinXP this morning at work, since this is for work (where the only Windows app I ever, ever have to use is Lotus Domino Admin and Designer since they dropped Mac support after R5).

    We use SuSE Linux 10 Pro on some entry-level desktops and SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 9 on all our servers. I popped in the SuSE 10 DVD, tried to pick it for booting in the Startup Disk control panel, and it worked! I tried picking it during boot-up, and it also worked. I got it to the point where I could resize the Windows partition to install Linux, and everything else gave no errors.

    We have some other odd linux live-boot CD's and even Solaris x86 that we're going to try just for the heck of it. I'm not going to go as far as to install any of them until I've tested the OS X and Win XP dual-booting for about a week, since that would be most useful for our users.

    I'm the I.T. Director in a business with about 300 employees world-wide, and the fact that we could boot Mac OS X, Win XP, and Linux on Apple hardware essentially removes all obstacles to purchasing these computers. I've been a Mac fan for 15 years since I started working here, and in the last 5 years it's been virtually impossible for me to convince the President or CEO that in certain cases it makes sense to buy a Mac. The reason has always been that "they don't run Windows".

    For guys like me and companies like us, Apple is going to start to see business they haven't seen in years because of what they did yesterday...

  100. Ubuntu on Aspire 1501 by Flying+pig · · Score: 1
    I'm writing this on an Acer Aspire 1501 running Ubuntu 5.10. It isn't a Macbook; it has just over 1G of RAM, and a 1400*1050 screen. Which is supported. Sound is supported. Fan works. Processor speed control works. Wireless networking took all of 10 minutes to set up including downloading the driver, getting ndiswrapper and running the client (mind you I do have 10Mbit/s download speeds...). Power management works; battery life panel works; no problems connecting to home or work network. I installed VMWare Server Beta and installed a basic XP on it (basically so I can run the packagers that produce Windows installers for our programs.) I suspect I will shortly remove the Windows image and just run anything Windows I need on a convenient server using VNC, because none of the Windows stuff needs much user interaction.

    Why did I do this terrible thing? Because despite a clean reinstall, NetBeans kept crashing, it was not coming properly out of hibernate and yes, dear, I tried it with a new hard disk as well as the old one. I am guessing we have a "Windows updater" issue here. Given that the Macbooks are 32 bit only, and I like to keep laptops for some time, I suspect my next one will have AMD on the processor and Ubuntu as the primary OS. I supported SuSE till they sold out to Novell, which I still think was a long term mistake, but I've grown to appreciate Gnome. Though I do have a VMWare SuSE image to hand somewhere.

    It isn't as pretty as OS X but it makes really efficient use of screen real estate and I can get my work done. And the time I spent configuring it, in total, was no more than I spent last time I reinstalled OS X and downloaded all the updaters a couple of times. Really.

    Yes, there is some truth in what you say, but 2006 turns out to be the year in which I decided that Linux was ready for the desktop.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:Ubuntu on Aspire 1501 by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      I would like to second this.

      The ONLY problem with running Linux on a laptop these days is mediocre wireless support (many don't work at all, only a handful work natively, lots work using NDISWrapper but that's beyond many home users' abilities). The rest of the things on that list now work at least as well and as reliably under Linux as under Windows.

      I supported SuSE till they sold out to Novell, which I still think was a long term mistake, but I've grown to appreciate Gnome. Though I do have a VMWare SuSE image to hand somewhere.

      Have you tried Kubuntu? You can just install the kubuntu-desktop package with apt-get to install the whole thing, it'll work alongside a regular Ubuntu install just fine. Me, I'm a Gnome person, formerly an XFCE person until Ubuntu 5.10 converted me from Gentoo and I got too used to having my WM do everything for me :)

  101. external USB/FW drive by shmlco · · Score: 1
    "I don't want to dedicate 20-30GB to a disk partition for a host OS..."

    Huh. Wonder if it's possible to install it on an external USB/FW drive?

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    1. Re:external USB/FW drive by Babbster · · Score: 1

      I thought of that myself. Then I realized that it would be simpler - if one is going to get an external drive - to dedicate 40-60 GB to the Windows partition and just use the external drive for OSX storage. After all, at least on the iMac I'll be buying later this month that would still leave 100+ GB for OSX on the main drive with plenty of space for whatever Windows gaming I want to do.

      I was so close to buying a cheap Windows box (my old main PC has died and it just doesn't feel worth fixing considering how crappy it is for gaming), but now that Apple's going out of their way to help me dual-boot I'll happily spend the extra money to get the Mac I've wanted - but previously couldn't really afford - since about 1988. :)

    2. Re:external USB/FW drive by shmlco · · Score: 1

      I'll probably get a MacBook with a standard drive, then buy a 160GB drive and swap it in, putting the old drive in a mini-FW enclosure. Should leave plenty of room for a partition.

      Might buy another mini-enclosure for NTFS data.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  102. In a company man! by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Look, I detest Outlook and IE probably a lot more than you do.

    But at work I have to use them every day, because the intranet with things I need to use only supports IE (well, some things will work under Mozilla since it supports NTLM but only some).

    As for outlook, I have one word - Calendar. This has been true at every company I've ever worked at, not being able to use the outlook calendar means that computer is useless for business needs.

    I generally also run Linux at work but it has to be on a seperate computer. If I can finally bring a mac in then I can have one computer, able to SSH properly and run X11 apps properly and run outlook properly - with two monitors. Having one computer is a lot handier to avoid shuttling stuff back and forth.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:In a company man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SO FUCKING QUIT AND STOP WHINING! I don't give a shit if you have to support your cow and brats back home, nobody forced you to knock her up.

  103. What's next by Genrou · · Score: 1

    MacBlue Screen of Death

  104. Don't think Vista will be an issue. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I don't think Vista will be an issue at all, because Apple is using standard Intel motherboards and standard video cards and so on. I think with these systems there are not even Mac specific video cards like there used to be.

    So I think that's a totally feasable move. Buy an iMac or Macbook Pro and run games on it on a Windows only partition. The coolest thing about Boot Camp is that it apparently also includes a dymanic partition resizer (sounds like Partition Magic) so you can always minmize space needed for the Windows game partition.

    The main topic was about the virtualization but I don't think that supports the video card at full speed, so a seperate boot partition might work better. Heck, perhaps you could share the install and use it virtualized sometimes and then boot Windows standalone for games.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Don't think Vista will be an issue. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      The coolest thing about Boot Camp is that it apparently also includes a dymanic partition resizer (sounds like Partition Magic) so you can always minmize space needed for the Windows game partition.
      It certainly sounds like it can resize Mac (i.e. HFS) partitions, but all it says about Windows (FAT or NTFS) is that it can create them and remove them again -- it can't necessarily resize them, too.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  105. Read whole parent tree by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    SK: Oh snap! I forgot, let me reboot to check my email really quick. I was just daydreaming about how great I am.

    If you look back to what I was responding to they were talking about virtualization of XP... if you think about what that means you realize that means running XP inside of OS X, without rebooting...

    It would have been funny otherwise though. :-)

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Read whole parent tree by databyss · · Score: 1

      ARGH!

      I apologize to you good sir/madam.

      I was sidetracked by the whole: "Its the first time I've seen so many Macheads get so excited about running windows" bit that I hadn't digested the " (or windows applications)." part.

      Too bad, that was pretty funny.

      I'll just pretend that I'm right and reality is wrong.

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
  106. This is so Not good for Apple and OSX... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is so Not good for Apple and OSX...

    Sure this may help their hardware sales, and it does offer this argument for the Apple community, "Why not buy an Apple, you can run Windows too?"

    However, what this says to developers is what it said to them during OS/2 days, and why no 'native' good OS/2 ports of popular software existed. There was no need, it ran Windows just fine, so developers would just write a Windows version and expect OS/2 to run their application inside the Windows binaries.

    The same could potentially happen for OSX and Apple. Especially in the games market. Why spend good money on an OSX port of your game if you assume most Mac users could just boot WindowsXP or Vista and run your game? Especially when Windows still has a video/performance margin over OSX technology for gaming.

    The are two marginal ways this could benefit Apple.
    1) Apple becames a major hardware vendor, and competes with Dell and Gateway, etc.
    2) Users do start buying Macs to dual boot, and find they like OSX much better than Windows. (Unfortunately, as hard is this is to stomach for a lot of Slashdotters, this doesn't happen in the world as much as OSX proponents would like to believe.) Usually when users are forced or try to move fully to OSX they do it kicking and screaming and if they were comfortable in Windows, end up back there. (And yes, I have seen this in several companies, management gets on the buzz, flips over a department of 20 or 30 users to OSX, and the users end up forcing the return of Windows PCs - especailly in department that were once Mac dominated like graphic design but later moved all their users to Windows in the 90s. The Users have not always been so keen to move back to Mac when it is forced on them.)

    So even if this does help Apple and Mac with marketshare, it will also become a contest of preferred usability between Vista and OSX, and I don't see OSX 'always' winning.

    My personal opinion is that this will boost OSX and Mac sales initially, but in the long run will destroy OSX, and Apple will potentially just become another Dell or Gateway.

    Which I do not think is such a good thing. Competition is a good thing.

    Besides, like I said above this type of move certainly didn't work for OS/2, and not only from the developer perspective, users liked OS/2, but not 'enough' to purchase it and Windows to run Windows applications.

    So will OSX be strong enough to keep users in OSX for the majority of use or just be a side booted OS, and people end up flipping to Windows for games and applications OSX doesn't yet have?

    If people keep finding themselves flipping back to Windows, they will start spending more time in Windows, just to not have to reboot. And when this slide happens, OSX will not be the dominate OS even running on Apple Macs.

    (Sure Windows runs on Macs already in VirtualPC, but there is big difference between running an emulator to 'get by' for some business applications, and booting into the full experience of Windows and running Windows games at high speed. And I think Apple is a little to arrogant on how good OSX is to think they will keep the market even on their own hardware.)

    1. Re:This is so Not good for Apple and OSX... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1
      If you are going to bring up OS/2 at least try to get your facts straight. OS/2 failed because people stopped porting/writing OS/2 apps when they realized they could just write Windows apps and they would also run in OS/2. Dual booting is different.

      When you dual boot, you are not able to access all the great apps and tools you have on OS X when you dual boot into windows.

      If apple were to support running windows apps seamlessly within OS X using something like darwine, then you would end up with the OS/2 situation.

      This might end up having a negative effect on games but I do not see it affecting other types of software.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    2. Re:This is so Not good for Apple and OSX... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      If you are going to bring up OS/2 at least try to get your facts straight. OS/2 failed because people stopped porting/writing OS/2 apps when they realized they could just write Windows apps and they would also run in OS/2. Dual booting is different.

      Ok, that is what I said, the only difference is that you assume I don't get the fact the system is 'dual booting'. Please don't assume.

      I agree that dual booting IS different, but the side effects ARE the same when dealing with large scale applications. Sure a business Application here or there, there is a difference, but gaming for one is an area that it would be comparable.

      If you were a Large Gaming Developer, would you invest another 5 Million in making an OSX port, or just ensure it runs under Windows on Macs, and ask the users to boot to Windows mode?

      Now facter in the Windows version has the full support of XNA technologies and will integrate with networking, sound and have better video performance than OpenGL on OSX will ever have.

      Do you think these companies will EVER release the game for OSX? Probably Not.

      This is very close to what happened with OS/2, no matter if they have reboot or not, that is a minimal difference, especially to the developers of large scale applications.

      If apple were to support running windows apps seamlessly within OS X using something like darwine, then you would end up with the OS/2 situation.

      No. Because they would be running OSX, just like VirtualPC, as the OSX kernel is vastly different and cannot do subsystems like Windows NT can.

      So this would be very much like existing OSX enviroments running an occasional Windows Application at sub-par performance. People are NOT going to run games or advanced CAD applications at 50% peformance if they can boot to Windows to run them at 100% speed.

      Watch when you see Adobe Photoshop run faster under Windows than OSX, even a native OSX Intel version. This is where Apple is arrogant about a OSX having a performance edge, and it appears it DOES NOT. So if a Graphic Designer has a Mac/Intel and all his Adobe applications run 5-10% faster under Windows, do you really think this will help the success of OSX?

      Also a funny thing to entertain, it would fairly easy for MS to license OSX, and create an x32 OSX subsystem for NT. As it is fully technically possible to do on the NT kernel WITHOUT emulation or virtualization and MS could run OSX applications at 'full speed' natively on the Windows NT architecture seamlessly with Windows applications. But again, that would be stupid for MS, based on the old OS/2 model and how it screws the main hosting OS, that is unless OSX on NT runs faster than OSX on its Darwin core.

    3. Re:This is so Not good for Apple and OSX... by Empty+Yo · · Score: 1

      I think this will be great. How many customers are going to load Windows, connect to the Internet, and watch their beloved Mac turn into a virus infestation in the first 15 minutes? A good portion of these unfortunates are going to rebuild their machines with OSX only because they will hold Windows responsible for the demise of the machine. Anyone with some skills can secure Windows pretty well, but Mac users are all about it 'just working' and when it doesn't 'just work' that first day, they aren't going to be happy.

      --
      I'll tolerate anything except intolerance.
    4. Re:This is so Not good for Apple and OSX... by waltc · · Score: 1

      Why not just say that this might not be "so good" for the *traditional* Mac community? Has it ever occurred to you that Apple might *want to outgrow* the fierce growth restraints inherent in the "traditional" Mac community?

      Look, if you were Apple and wanted above all other things to make your money selling *hardware*--which is obviously what Apple's always been about--would you forever want to be stuck in a 2%-market-share niche? Or, would you like to break out of that mold and seek new audiences, new horizons, and new "communities"? Look, if x86 Windows compatability was something Apple *didn't want* then do you think for ten seconds the company would have dumped its entire hardware PPC heritage to date to jump on the x86/Intel bandwagon? There would scarecely have been any point to that whatever had Apple not wanted native x86 Windows compatability very, very badly.

      You lament that Apple "might" become "just a Dell," etc., without understanding apparently that in Steve Jobs' most passionate wet dreams he sees Apple one day *supassing* Dell in terms of unit shipments and revenue! Jobs stated the same a few years ago, although at that time his "secret" plan to go x86 was as of yet unknown--to everyone except himself, it would seem...;)

      Look, change is the one constant to life, and so is growth. When you stop changing and growing--you die. It's as true for companies as it is for people. Apple isn't arrogant about OSX at all--they know that at present it's more of a niche OS with a smaller installed base than Linux, and that it's losing developers every day, and that Apple as a company cannot be put into the position of one day having to itself write every important application that exists for OSX, just to keep people interested in OSX. Apple doesn't want to go there because Apple doesn't want to be a *software company.* That's the bottom line, isn't it? Look--if Apple wanted to be a software company and compete with the likes of Microsoft then Apple would *open OSX up to the entire x86 world* instead of keeping it tied to Apple hardware, as if OSX was something to be hoarded. There's just no getting around the fact that nothing Apple has said or done to date during this entire transition indicates that Apple desires to compete with Microsoft for x86 OS market share. Realize that Apple has *not* unchained OSX to compete in the larger, world x86 marketplaces, but that Apple has *invited* Windows in to compete with OSX inside the generic x86 Intel hardware platform that *is* today's Mac (I call today's Mac a "MacIntel.")

      It really doesn't matter much what the traditional Mac community wants or desires, does it? I mean, *if it did* I seriously doubt Apple would have made the major decisions it's made in the last couple of years. What matters to Apple is what Apple--it's shareholders and its managers--want the company to be. And I for one think that Jobs wants to leave the community on a much different footing than it is on now or ever has been, and to do that Apple's got to start building bridges like crazy and tearing down all those troublesome walls the company has unwisely spent so much time and money building for so many years.

      When you ponder the Apple of today think primarily about change and realize that the Apple of yesteryear is all but dead and buried. Whether or not this is something you can accept is a decision that neither I, nor Apple, can make for you.

      It's kind of like this in a nutshell: Apple is thinking that if it has to trade every traditional MacIntosh customer for *two* new x86/Windows customers, then although the company doesn't want to lose you it *will* lose you if that's what it takes to grow the company past its present market-share boundaries. The Apple of today is looking ahead and not behind and that's the most remarkable change of all.

  107. Re:WILL SOMEBODY MOD THAT COCKSUCKER DOWN?! by daveschroeder · · Score: 1, Informative

    Yes, I recycled that paragraph from one of my previous posts. So? It's my own text. Am I not allowed to post it twice when it's speaking to EXACTLY the same issue? Additionally, the entire rest of the message is different, and both of the complete posts were on different topics. I don't care if it "smells like marketing". It was designed to be informative, and it is.

    As I said, I have nothing to do with Parallels, the product or the company (other than using it).

  108. Re:How about virtualization, too! by akino · · Score: 1

    How about virtualization with WinXP as the host OS and MacOS X as the guest OS? Does Parallel support that?!

  109. Foot in the door for corporate America. by argent · · Score: 1

    Yeh, I talked about getting a Macbook when I ran into my boss yesterday, since basically there's like 3 programs I ever run on Windows... but I *have* to run them to get my timecard in and create purchase orders.

    He laughed.

    But he didn't say no. Yet, anyway.

  110. Re:How about virtualization, too! by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

    No, and it won't.

    Also, it's in violation of the Mac OS X license agreement to use it on anything but Apple-labeled hardware. Whether or not you "agree" with that, it still ends up meaning that no commercial company is going to make something that lets people run Mac OS X on other platforms or in virtualization (on anything but Apple hardware).

  111. Re:Mac fanboys become Windows users... NOT by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1
    The only reason people like me would reboot would be to play games. That is usually the same reason why linux users dual boot. Any productivity apps that do not have an OS X equiv. can be run through a virtualization solution like Parallels.

    I switched to the mac in the first place because of the OS and the software available for it. I find OS X to be extremely productive. If you don't like Safari, you can always use Firefox or Shiira or Opera or Omniweb etc....

    XP does not have the similicity of Frontrow nor does it support the remote. The iSight camera does not work either. If I want full hardware support, I will use OS X.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  112. Re:Not Macheads by iroll · · Score: 1

    *blinks*

    I would be, if virtualization supported 3D applications.

    It would. Maybe you should read up on "virtualization," as the *entire point* of modern hardware virtualization would be to give the sandboxed OS access to the full functionality of the hardware--including 3D Hardware.

    I would still be in Windows all the time anyway. (I play a lot of games and it hardly seems worth it just to reboot to use Opera in Mac OS X...)

    No, you wouldn't. That would be a dual-boot system, not OS virtualization.

    With OS virtualization, you would have Opera (and iChat and BitTorrent and iTunes and etc etc) running on your host system (e.g. OSX), and Far Cry running at (or near) full speed in a Windows session in a window... or in full screen (with the host desktop etc hidden). Hell, you could also have a Linux session (again at or near full speed) running at the same time, to run some other random program, if you had the RAM. You could have a Windows session running continously for as long as you want without logging out or rebooting OS X, and all at (or near) native hardware speed.

    Need Outlook and Visio? Want to pwn some noobs in Planetside? Want to check how that webpage you built renders in IE 6? Open a Windows session. Then hit a hotkey and get back to all of your Mac software running on OS X at the same time. THAT is the point of virtualization--multiple operating systems running in parallel--and THAT is why people are excited about it.

    --
    Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
  113. Re:WILL SOMEBODY MOD THAT COCKSUCKER DOWN?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was designed to be informative, and it is.

    No, it was not informative. It was very offtopic, and the GP was calling you out for being a karma-whoring jackass. Are you going to post this useless crap whenever any article relating to Mac OS comes up?

  114. Re:WILL SOMEBODY MOD THAT COCKSUCKER DOWN?! by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

    Whenever an article comes up relating running Windows on a Mac, which is something many people want to do, and the first virtualization product ever for the Mac platform is released THAT VERY DAY that can do just that WITHOUT the annoyance of rebooting (which is preferable for the majority of people interested in running Windows, since many aren't interested in gaming), yes, I will post that kind of "useless crap", thanks.

  115. Re:WILL SOMEBODY MOD THAT COCKSUCKER DOWN?! by toleraen · · Score: 1

    You're absolutely right. There is nobody interested in gaming. At. All.

    You might notice that the only performance they talk about in the article is game performance. They didn't bother running any benchmarks, they didn't mention how movies play, they didn't mention how photoshop runs, etc etc. A few things installed ok. Then they played games for a few hours! Where did you get the "majority of people" part? The voices in your head? Because I see tons and tons of threads going back to how well games run in XP on Mac hardware. (See above for my refrences) What else are people going to run Windows side by side with OS X for? Office productivity? Audio/Video/Photo editing? Web surfing? Email? Oh wait, the one last thing that Windows actually has a real hold on. Games.

  116. Re:Not Macheads by IndigoParadox · · Score: 0

    I think you misunderstood me. When I said "virtualization," I meant VMWare or any similar package that is available here and now. None of them support 3D hardware for the guest at all. Go try one of them out and check. The current incarnation of virtualization seems to be designed only to virtualize the CPU and instead emulates everything else. A GeForce FX becomes a generic S3 2D-only card under VMWare.

    I would be, if virtualization supported 3D applications. Until that time, why bother switching from my PC? I would still be in Windows all the time anyway. To which you replied: No, you wouldn't. That would be a dual-boot system, not OS virtualization.

    I'm not sure if you read my original sentence above too quickly, but the meaning of this sentence was to say "I would gladly use Mac OS X if I could run VMWare (or Virtual PC or any other current package,) under it and run Half-Life or whatever inside of it. (I cannot, VMWare does not support 3D hardware as I stated above.) However, since VMWare does not support this I would instead be forced to dual boot which would destroy the point of switching to a Mac as I would then invariably be using Windows constantly anyhow. I'm sorry if this phrasing was not originally clear; I hope it is now.

  117. Re:WILL SOMEBODY MOD THAT COCKSUCKER DOWN?! by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

    *Sigh*.

    I'm at one of the largest Mac sites outside of Apple (>15000 institutionally owned Macs). The people here who are clamoring to run Windows here, and at other institutions, aren't doing it to play games. They're doing it because they have to run administrative and/or speciality applications that are Windows-only. And until now they either muddled along with an emulator, or simply didn't get a Mac. Now those very people, just in the last couple of days between Boot Camp and Parallels, are putting in orders. Big orders. (Many had seen the writing on the wall, but were just waiting for a product to materialize.) Why do you think AAPL is up $10 in the last two days?

    Sure, there's a good chunk of people who care about games, and that's the only reason they want to run Windows on their Mac. And there's quite a big group of enterprise, institutional, scientific, and research users who couldn't possibly care less about games, and don't want to dual boot. That's why a virtualization solution is so attractive.

    (Also, no, pretty much everything you listed at the end of your post is NOT what people want to run under Windows. They want to run Access. Or Visio. Or some crazy Windows-only scientific app. Or a stats package. Or some university/business administrative application. Or Grants.gov. Believe it or not, there's a lot more to computing than office productivity, web, email, and games. You don't have to believe me, but the non-game market for Windows virtualization on Mac OS X is *huge*, and the inroads Apple will make into markets with commercial virtualization will be even greater than the ones they make with Boot Camp, but Boot Camp will help, because it shows Apple doesn't have its head in the sand with respect to the desire of some of its customers to run Windows, for whatever reason, on their Intel-based Macs.)

  118. Mac gaming is ALREADY dead! by balaam's+ass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hi, Mac user here. All these posts about "Why should a company develop for Mac when they know people can just dual boot? This will kill Mac games..."

    C'mon. Mac gaming is ALREADY dead, by any measure. Look at the number of high-end demos posted on MacGameFiles.com over the past year, and you'll see that it's falled off to nearly zero in recent months. GameSpy stopped supporting Mac ladders a while ago. Go to a computer store, and if you can even find one that sells Mac games, you'll see that for all the shelves and shelves of PC games, there's only about 20% as many titles available for the Mac. Call of Duty 2? No. Battlefield 2? No? Half-Life, ...the list goes on. And if a game DOES come out, it can be as much as a year since the PC version came out. And of the games that DO exist, the older ones (e.g. Medal of Honor) are *still* full price, whereas the same PC titles are half as much as they used to be or more. So, only one of 5 high-end titles (at best) and no bargain-bin games, makes the term "Mac gaming" kind of an oxymoron.

    OS X is nice, but I really love the Mac hardware. I'm interested in buying a MacBook Pro and putting *only* Windows on it. To get work done (cygwin, virtualization) and to play GAMES.

  119. Can you run VMWare from within the Windows VM? by swb · · Score: 1

    Can you?

  120. Why would anybody want to this? by jaypaulw · · Score: 1

    This is like puting a yugo engine in a porsche!

  121. Re:Not Macheads by iroll · · Score: 1

    Much more clear now, thanks. I can assure you that I read your post at least as slowly as you wrote it ;-)

    --
    Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
  122. A friggin' Yawner..... by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    This is a non event. Someone said that this will draw "millions" of people to Macs. Boot camp will not draw millions of new Mac users. That's just flat out rediculous. "Regular" PCs are much cheaper, people will continue to buy them. You either stay with Windows or switch to a Mac, Joe A. Citizen will not spend the extra money on a Mac and dual boot. It's not going to happen. This will fail. A few Mac fantics will do it but that's it. I love my Macs but I have NO interest in doing Windows on a Mac. NONE. This is a yawner IMHO....

  123. nah by Scudsucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Games that are released simultaniously (or nearly so) will do just fine - i.e. most id and Blizzard games. What this will kill, however, is shipping a title for the Mac at $50 when a year and a half after the PC version was released, which is currently in the bargin bin for $20.

  124. XP on a MAC? Ironic. by StandStrong · · Score: 1

    XP is the superior platform in nearly every respect. The fact that we are interacting in this web space right now has mostly to do with Windows machines' impact on the world of technology (and their outsourcing). Tiger is a respectable and intuitive platform, as will be Leopard, I'm sure. However, does not anyone see the irony in all of this? The "dream" Mac Machines now incorporate a processor and an OS that Windows users have been using for over a decade and as a result we call the Mac Masterminds geniuses? I am all for the dual booting idea, and have been using Linux and XP on my machine, but let's not forget that Windows brought us to where we are today in the technology world. Mac's inclusion of the Intel chip and Windows XP is a concession to that fact. One can not argue with Windows' longevity, versatility, relative stability (my machine has rarely if ever crashed), cost-effectiveness, and overall impact on the way we compute. Welcome to the robust world of Windows my friends.

    1. Re:XP on a MAC? Ironic. by pressman · · Score: 1

      Wow! This is the greatest flamebait I have ever read! Thank you!

      But seriously. The choice to go over to Intel was more one of necessity because Apple's partners in IBM and Motorola were never very dedicated to the PPC platform in the PC space. They were always more focused on embedded devices, mainframes and gaming consoles. IBM basically blew off Apple with the G5 and never really had any plans to create a version of the G5 that would run cool enough to fit inside an ultra slim laptop. So, Apple was stuck with the G4 in the PowerBooks with nowhere to go. Intel had a line of much faster processors and a roadmap that allowed Apple to grow their laptop business again and it accounts for a large portion of their income. As a result, rather than deal with a mixed architecture, Apple decided to go all Intel. Windows dominance of the marketplace had very little to do with the decision. The ability to run XP on top of of Mac... well, same chips.... you do the math. Makes the Mac much more attractive now.

      --
      Pooty tweet
  125. MS DRM lockout by 0xC2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So what is to prevent MS from preventing Windows from running on Macs? Either through licensing, or a DRM chip, or simply not providing support (security patches, etc.) for mac installations?

    --
    Be heard || Be herd
  126. Re:Let me guess... bling! by stevelup · · Score: 1

    But that's exactly my point.

    For someone who *wants* an all in one unit - there is no better choice.

    You don't want an all in one unit so by definition the iMac must seem silly and pointless to you - it doesn't mean that it is to others.

  127. Re:Not Macheads by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1
    I could be totally mistaken, but I sure thought that VMWare Workstation supported 3D hardware, but the server version didn't. From VMTN Discussion Forums :
    > When will 3d graphics be supported/available in GSX server?

    The GSX does not support 3D graphics and I am not sure that this will be ported over from Workstation into a server product, like VMware Server.
    and also
    Won't work, not likely to ever work. Server always runs VMs using a VNC-like remote connection which cannot handle 3D acceleration. Workstation always runs locally, so certain optimizations are possible. One of these optimizations is 3D graphics. It's in the codebase; but the UI that can make use of those 3D settings isn't a part of Server, and it's not possible to mix-and-match different UIs. Besides, "workstations" use fancy 3D graphics, not "servers"! ;-)
  128. Re:Not Macheads by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

    More links: Enabling Accelerated 3-D for a Virtual Machine, and also checkout Experimental Support for Direct3D for limitations and issues.

  129. White and Pure by jellyfish_green · · Score: 1

    As someone wittier than I related when these rumors of Windows-boot first started flying:

    SARUMAN: "Do you know how the Orcs first came into being? They were Elves once."

  130. Re:Not Macheads by IndigoParadox · · Score: 0

    I was going to reply with this link. (Specifically the limitations.) Apparently they've added this since last time I switched back from Linux and it's not even a fully functional feature yet. It still doesn't look like it supports a lot of things I would need for, say, the Sims 2 or Half-Life 2. Maybe someday but not now. Especially considering that also in 5.0 they can't even get the sound to stop studdering on my machine. =O/

  131. Here is what we "whiners" trying to say by Ilgaz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Pasting a "download site" commentary by a user (not me) and will say one thing

    "(1 of 2 users found this comment useful)
    rollm
    Holy shite!!!!, I went and downloaded America's Army. Played a game online. Jacked up the video settings to highest possible in the preferences, world, detail, etc. Smooth as a baby's ass-I have NEVER seen graphics like this in a game on a Mac, ever. Going to go out and buy me an external drive for this mac just for games- I am totally blown away! Un-Freakin Believable!! All you Whiners saying that this is bad, no development, etc. (this makes Apple and OSX a REAL player now) do not get it. I do not have to wait for Mac games to catch up-been waiting for over 20 years now. Finally can the superior hardware, dual core MacBook Pro, 2Ghz, 256 vram, etc. Games on my mac, what a concept. Figure using XP as a gaming tool is worth all the complaints. Using OSX to do everything else I want to use a computer for completes the balance. All I can say is WOW. I can finally play the games I have wanted to. Woo Hoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

    MY NOTE: Americas Army has OS X binary which runs on G4/G5 and using OS X technologies to the limit such as Core Audio 5.1 sound.

    I rest my case Slashdot. Also it is a pity to be forced to post with "karma" since you know the real zealots,fanatics.

  132. You've got a point by Cybrex · · Score: 1

    Valid point. Hell, Firefox downloaded and installed flawlessly on my PowerBook without me even needing to install Windows on it! ;-)

    --
    Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
  133. What firsts? by johndesz · · Score: 1
    What firsts? Apple revolutionizing personal computing? Yeah, Microsoft has always been the innovator there, right?

    You have it backwards: It's PC owners excited about the prospect of using the Mac's superior mulitmedia capabilities, programs, and integration WITHOUT having to also give up their PC. Best of all, when your PC succombs to the threat of the week, you can just boot into OS X to get something done.

    It's Mac users that are guilty of groupthink? The users who are notoriously willing to swim against the current of obediant MS worshipers, who form the overwhelming majority (as they keep reminding us)?

  134. Re:Let me guess... bling! by (A)*(B)!0_- · · Score: 1

    Your point was that it is the best all-in-one machine. I didn't argue with that. I asked why someone would want one in the first place. I don't understand the thinking or reasonining behind buying something like this and was curious. I wish you could have understood that.

  135. Amiga by meehawl · · Score: 1

    What Apple is betting on is that the user experience on Mac OS X is enough better that, when users get to try OSX and Windows side-by-side, they'll prefer OSX.

    This new Apple "Boot Camp" seems like a death knell for the Macintosh and its Unix-based OSX as a viable alternative platform for packaged software such as Office, Adobe, and so on. Dual boot systems are disastrous for alternative OS PCs. How many Amigas do you see around today? Dual booting between Amiga and DOS hindered the development of stand-alone software for that platform. By doing this, Apple reduces the attractiveness of OSX as a release platform for major software. Why bother doing an OSX version when you can just tell your "Mac" customers to run your program in Windows? It may help Apple sell more Macs in the short term, but in the long term it further removes Apple's distinctiveness and transforms it even more into just another boutique PC vendor similar to Alienware, sorry, Dell.

    --

    Da Blog
  136. It has to be said. by godnix · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now that Apple Computer has quietly made it known that its new Intel-based Macs will be able to dual-boot into Windows, we finally will have a basis for benchmark comparisons which will be.... well.... Apples to Apples.

  137. Re:Let me guess... bling! by stevelup · · Score: 1

    Sorry - I'll have a go then.

    Some people are driven more by aesthetics than the technical capabilities of a machine. Not everyone wants a tower unit sat next to their desk, and not everyone is bothered about upgradability and expansion. Also, there are a lot of people who buy the iMac because of how it looks. It's a pretty convenient package - especially when you are using wireless accessories with it.

    Most geeks won't appreciate it but you can be sure that your 'arty' type sitting in his glass and stainless steel clad loft apartment sure will.

  138. One Word by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    And can you explain how you're going to check email and get to your calendars in Windows, at the same time as doing everything else in OS X?

    Virtualization, check the parent post I was responding to. It went into great detail explaining just that...

    Basically you have a copy of Windows running at the same time as OSX. Kind of like a terminal server session but locally.

    Apple doesn't offer a virtualization solution just yet, supposedly with Panther they will. But the solution mentioned is free now and just $9 later when it comes out of beta, very reasonable for the functionality it offers.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  139. Zealotry is unproductive by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

    Linux zealots have windows-phobia: objections to interoperability with such Evil things as windows.
    You don't want the value windows gives you(drivers,apps/games) because your operating system is Superior.
    Its can be Superior all day long,it doesn't change the choices people make.
    If it was useful,bugfree,running windows drivers(1) and apps,and most important user-friendly people would switch to it.
    And not a certain percent,a Majority would switch.
    1.(If windows version is superior use windows version of driver/application).

    So (assume no patents exists)
    Let me provide analogy to this case:
    a Company let it be named Intel
    sells a CPU X,Which has alot of functions among them function Z which
    is very useful for processing video.
    Now a rival company let it be named AMD
    sells a cheaper CPU Y,which does alot of functions of CPU X,except its Z function which makes it slower to process video(because it lacks Z).
    Now Imagine Z is found to be trivially easy to reproduce(ex: reprogramming few copy microcodes).
    Would that AMD company implement it? Or
    reject it for grounds its CPU is superior and doesn't need such ugly hacks as Z.I think the company would
    implement it,Don't you?

  140. the obvious: virtual pc by osssmkatz · · Score: 1

    have you ever heard of virtual pc?

    You could have run it "(a decent design/admin GUI for PostgreSQL)" in emulation. Why didn't you? "Had I been able to boot into Windows to use that one tool (or even better, used it under emulation/virtualisation while still in MacOS), I would almost certainly have ended up with a Mac."

    http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/virtualpc/vi rtualpc.aspx?pid=virtualpc

    1. Re:the obvious: virtual pc by plumby · · Score: 1
      have you ever heard of virtual pc?

      I have, and last time I tried it it was pretty slow (admittedly that could have been the hardware I was using) and it cost £200. I suppose it might have done the trick on better hardware, but at that price I wasn't prepared to take the risk.

  141. Ah, memories! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thing I remember most fondly about OS/2 is that it was the first time a PC could format a diskette without consuming 100% of the system resources for the operation.