Slashdot Mirror
Bunk Camp - Apple Gets It Wrong?
An anonymous reader writes "CNET.com.au has posted a commentary that attempts to cut away the hype surrounding Boot Camp. From the article: 'Boot Camp will do little to coax Windows XP users into switching to Mac OS X. For this to happen, Apple needs to either license out OS X to all users -- not just Mac owners -- or support a true Mac virtualisation application.'"
This is purely my own anecdotal experience on the matter, but I've already talked to nearly a dozen X86/Windows PC owners that told me that because of the ability to boot XP, they are now heavily leaning towards buying a Mac Mini or other Apple gear as their next computer.
Transistors and Beer!!
What attracts me to Apple (as a windows user no less) is OS X. Period. Yea, the hardware looks nice but really I could care less. OS X is a very good OS. Take that away and put OS 9 back on and I wouldn't even consider using one.
As far as OS X on non-Mac hardware, well, that would be a dream come true. Not for home users, but for use in business on standardized white boxes from Dell/HP. It's a pipe dream, I know, but it would be nice.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Boot Camp will do little to coax Windows XP users into switching to Mac OS X
Not true. I need a Windows machine for some software development, but I want OS X the rest of the time. And I don't want two computers on my desk.
The day they announced Bootcamp, I bought a new 20" iMac.
boxlight
There are no shortage of stability problems with Linux when you get into the crappier end of the hardware scale, just like Windows (as I have been reminded over the last week losing more hair to machines with VIA chipsets).
MS isn't stable, because they don't care about stability
Windows on well made hardware, and with good drivers, is extremely stable. If your Windows installation is not stable, Windows is not the problem - it's either broken hardware or bad drivers.
I agree: I really enjoy using Apple's products, and I think this is getting ridiculous. To be fair, Slashdot is far from the only news source — online or otherwise — that's flogging the bejeezus out of this. The Apple advocate in me thinks the attention is great as it's a sign that once again Apple is the company that's doing new and nifty things that get peoples' attention (or at least they're doing things that get attention, and the newness and niftiness can be debated), but on the other hand the whole Boot Camp foofaraw just keeps coming down to lots of people yelling at each other about what they think the product should be or do, or what they wish it was. *shrug* It's like anything else, some people are going to think it's dumb, some will think it's really useful. I'm one of the latter; I'm a developer and I don't want to have separate machines for running all the MS stuff if I can at all avoid it, and I've had some issues trying to run all the 2005/.NET 2.0 products (SQL Server, VS, and c., and c.) in a virtual PC, so this is something that will work well for me. For people who want to swap quickly in and out of, say, Outlook in Windows and Photoshop on Mac, well then yeah, BC is dumb.
Let it go people, it's just software. Use it or don't, then be quiet.
With so little put into it and so much buzz earned back out of it, I don't see how anyone could view this as anything but a win for Apple.
ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
If you meant Battlefield 1942, then there is a solution to avoid the need to use Boot Camp: Battlefield 1942 for Mac. Aspyr has ported plenty of good games to the Mac. If you have a Mac and play games, then I would recommend supporting these guys, since the do a good job porting the games.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I understand your point, but that is no longer valid.
Look at how many platforms linux and bsd run on, they are pretty stable.
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.
it is all about weaning users off of windows
I'm afraid you're right. I was hoping a future version of BootCamp would take advantage of modern Macs' ability to suspend-to-disk (hibernate) for rebooting into Windows - when you're done reboot into Mac OS and it'll restore itself to where you were.
But that makes it easier to reboot into Windows, so probably not a direction Apple would want to go.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
If you're going to get sticky about that whole "legal" thing, I guess you'd have to consider that it isn't legal to run OS X on anything except a Mac. So you're argument is pretty much done right there.
One fact the dude in the article missed completely is that by ADDING windows to the machine you can still get work done when Windows inevitably craps out. What can I do with my MacBook Pro that I couldn't with my AMD Laptop? Get things done. Does that count? The glaring difference between the amount of time I spend trying to make sure the MBP runs effectively and smoothly versus the amount of time the AMD took has got to be saving me at least three hours a week. Hell, just the fact I don't feel I have to save my work in 15 minute increments (because that BSOD is always just around the corner) is a timesaver.
For the AMD laptop, I used Norton for AV and Ad-Aware for spyware. I switched to Avast, then to the Onecare beta. I kept my drivers updated. I did the virus scan every week. I sent the laptop back twice for hardware replacement (which was always a hassle.) I wasn't just sitting back trolling for malware -- I actively worked at keeping the machine functioning well. Now, I'm simply more productive. When I want to deinstall a program, I just throw it away.... and it's GONE! No more Registry Bloat. No more crap from installed and then partially uninstalled apps. AND I have unix at my fingertips!
What made me consider the MBP was the fact that I got a Mini for testing. And it just worked. No hassles. I've had the MBP for awhile now and I can say that the amount of hassle this machne has been vs. the hassle the AMD was in the first few months is FAR less.
I said "No, I'm perfectly willing to buy OS X. Put it in the stores and I'll pay for it. Keep it locked to hardware and you won't see a dime from me. APPLE is stealing from your livelihood by not selling me what I want."
I know exactly how you feel. I said the same thing to a mate of mine who had just bought back a new games machine from Japan. I said, "No, I'm perfectly willing to buy this from you. Put it up for sale and I will pay for it. Keep it locked in your house, and you won't see a dime from me, I will steal it.
Rusty analogy sure, but your making the point that they (ie your mate) should suffer if they don't do something you want them to. That is your justification for what you want to do, knowing that your mate will in someway be affected.
You are absolutely correct. Back in the 80's, Commodore released the Commodore 128 that would boot into Commodore 64 mode and run apps (games) written for the Commodore 64. This was becuase of the pre-existing base of apps already written for the C64. What happened was nobody wrote new apps native for the 128 because they could cover all their bases with a C64 version. Because of this, the C128 didn't do well on the market. Why buy a C128 if everything is written for the cheaper C64?
Likewise, if I had to hire some Windows programmers and some Mac programmers to get two versions of an app out in six months. I would be better served to hire only Windows guys and get it out in three months.
Apple isn't stupid and they have to know this. So, I have to wonder if the Mac version of Office is going away and this is Apple's way of keeping a way to run Office.
He who questions training, only trains himself at asking questions. -- The Sphinx, Mystery Men
might be the way to go. Parallels.com
photosMy Photostream
I didn't say I'd actually gone out and stolen the OS. I said I *wanted* to run the OS. But I won't, because I can't get it legally. I'm not going to do it. I'd like to be running OS X but I don't want to buy even more hardware than I already have.
I realize they don't HAVE to sell it to me. But it seems to me that if a company has a product that people want, they should put a price on it and make it available. If there are externalities to selling the product separately then they should alter the price accordingly.
If they ever make it available, I'll buy it. If they don't, I won't run OS X. Pretty simple.
And you betray a infantile understanding of ethics and morality if you think not getting your way is justification for violating somebody else's IP and wishes for their property.
Did I say I'd DONE it? No, I said I WANTED to BUY OS X. I'm not going to move to Mac because honestly I'm not convinced that it can take over all my jobs. I'd like to play with it. If it turns out that OS X can do everything I need, I probably will buy a Mac eventually. But I'm not going to go out and buy a piece of hardware that's locked to an OS that I'm not sure I want to move to.
Therefore, as I said, Apple gets not a dime from me, and I don't get OS X.
If we bought a WinTel box, it would be booted into Linux for the adults and we'd have to reboot for the kids games. If we bought an OS-X box the adults would be happy with it (I'd have my precious command line, the wife would have her preferred Mac gui), and we'd just limit ourselves to games that worked on OS-X. The wife isn't thrilled with that option (she's the one that has to research and buy the games), I'm not thrilled with paying the MS tax so I can run Linux, so we haven't moved on this for over two years.
Now that boot-camp is here/coming to 10.5 it's a no brainer. We'll get an Intel based Mac. If a game is so good that we've just got to get it, and it only runs on XP, the kids can boot XP occaisonally.
I'd already switched to a Mac awhile ago (from linux, not Windows), but this has me seriously contemplating upgrading to an Intel chip to take advantage of this. Before I had my eye on getting a cheap high end G5 Powermac when they finally switched those over to Intel. So instead of me being on the secondary market for a lightly used uber PPC Mac in a few months, I'm looking at buying an iMac directly from Apple.
But I think this guy (and all the people on CNBC who talk about this being "for businesses") is missing the point. People aren't saying "boy, I'd sure like to combine the price of Apple hardware with the stability of Windows", they're saying "OSX is just flat out a better all-around experience for most things, but some app categories are really missing, I wish I could dual boot so I can use a Windows app when necessary".
Games are the killer app that is keeping a lot of younger users, annoyed by all of Windows' failings, from switching. The young gamer of today could be the head of an IT department in the future, and if he sees OSX as a more productive system for doing actual work, and Windows as basically "something to play games on", that's going to factor in to future hardware purchases.
It's also more of a Big Lie nowdays, as Macs are based on the same Intel chipsets that Dell and every other major PC vendor uses. There's nothing mysterious or exotic about their innards.
When the "leaked betas" of OS X were circulating, people found they had little troubles running OS X stabley on pretty much any Intel PC from the last year or two. Which is only 70% of PCs sold.
The entire argument is a hangover from the 68K/NuBus days, when Apple really did build an exotic machine.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Not true, games are seen differently.
.bin files with daemon tools, but even with purely single player games like Oblivion, which my friends downloaded before it came out here in the UK, still bought it ON RELEASE DAY to make sure the staff will get off their throne of success and will damn well make a sequel.
Let me explain, I'm a teenager, I have teenage geek friends, and XP is abhorrently pirated to no end. Hell, most of the people I know have the XP corp. key MEMORISED. There's a reason for this. They build a lot of computers, and they have to reformat a lot. I'm not meaning their machines, but you know how it is. Friends/relatives/schools always call on "that computer whizz" to fix their machines, and it's mortally wounded with a backup and reformat the only sane course of surgical success.
Most geeks don't have the heart to tell their grandmother that a new windows copy is going to cost £130 (price checked on ebuyer) and they're not going to tell them to use Linux because they'll never manage, having only just mastered their left mouse buttons.
Windows is seen as an annoying necessity to run certain apps and games. It's £130 for a terrible but essential product, and it's felt that there's no alternative. For the things they want to do with their computers, there isn't an alternative and as a result there's disdain for Microsoft. Windows is seen as an overpriced arm lock, so no one has trouble pirating it. Partly, people ENJOY that it hurts Microsoft because they have a particularly high disdain for their products and practices. Whether this is ethically correct is another discussion.
Games are entirely different. You don't HAVE to buy it before everything else, and teenagers LIKE games, and want to support the games they do like. There is the limiting factor that to play online with an illegal copy is difficult in comparison to loading some
In short,
Games: A fun product we can choose to support as it brings us entertainment.
Windows: A terrible overpriced product we are forced to pay through our noses for, only to have it accuse us of being criminals and die slowly whatever we do, while limiting competition through proprietary means.
It's not a case of. "If we can pirate it, we will.". Believe it or not, teens do have morals.
``Ragnarok
There are two smart things Apple has done with Boot Camp, which should help Mac OS X in the long run:
A few results of this decision:
As such, I don't see this as being a big problem for the future of Mac OS X -- if anything, Apple has just hooked in more future OS X customers.
Now if they would only extend Boot Camp to work with Linux...
Yaz.