Boot Camp: the day after
By Marc Perton 
posted Apr 6th 2006 3:07PM
posted Apr 6th 2006 3:07PM
Now that Apple's Boot Camp is in the wild, there's very little to be said about booting into alternate operating systems on the Mac, right? Wrong! Because, not surprisingly, no sooner did Apple take the wraps off its little 30th birthday suprise, than Mac owners (or non-Mac owners who could cajole friends into lending them their Macs for a spell) began to put the Apple boot manager through its paces. And they've found out quite a few interesting things, including:
- Boot Camp can load Vista. Or at least the Vista installer. Marc Orchant at ZDNet is one of those using a borrowed MacBook Pro, and he was able to load the Vista installer with no problem. Alas, his lender insisted on doing a full backup before allowing Orchant to go any further, so we have yet to see whether a full Vista install is possible -- though we remain optimistic.
- Boot Camp can load Linux. Or at least a Linux installer. Torifile at applenova.com also got cold feet, and aborted an Ubuntu install after confirming that the setup loaded and was able to recognize a keyboard and other hardware.
- International editions of Windows will work with Boot Camp. This should come as no surprise, but with a beta product that's designed to do something that isn't supposed to work, you never know. But the PC Watch team in Japan wasted no time and installed the Japanese version of XP Pro without a hitch.
- Boot Camp can load Windows XP Media Center Edition. Now the Mac mini really is a media PC!
- Third parties are already filling in some of the gaps. With a basic Boot Camp setup, you can't access your Mac OS X partition from your Windows XP partition. However, MediaFour's MacDrive software solves that problem. Now you can boot into Windows and read and write to your Mac partition, which could allow you to have common settings files for some cross-platform apps. Whether or not it will also allow you to share your iTunes library between partitions remains to be seen.
- You can boot from external drives, even though Boot Camp's installer won't allow you to set it up. Actually, that may not be true. However, you can create external boot disks using narf and blanka's boot manager (see, there's still a use for it!). And we're pretty confident that someone will find a way to do so within Boot Camp as well very quickly.
Bill Gates is king.
Now there is no reason to go back ... to OS X.
I think MacDrive is the key application here for Boot Camp, and I'm sure Apple will include a feature like this in the final release of Boot Camp. This would allow you to install Windows on the smallest amount of space possible, yet still have access to your entire 200GB (or whatever) of space. This has confirmed my purchase of an Intel PowerMac, whenever those may be released.
Still cant figure how to right click with XP. I was under the impression that it was done using thr ctrl key, but that doesn't seem to work. Anybody know how to set this up?
so with this people will get eveything they wanted the pc to but on a mac and Dvorak was right. now you can have you apple DVR and all 3 os on one box but the only things is since windows vista will be delayed i dont think people will buy mac just because of this because they are still expensive and they cant match the speed like the other pc manufactor for that price you are going to pay and they are missing one thing. A F**KING MONITOR to come with it.
I think the biggest missing piece is a good NTFS extension for Mac OS X that supports read and write access. Windows XP runs fine from FAT32 formatted drives but there are many advantages to using NTFS.
My intial reaction when I saw that Apple released Boot Camp and Parralel's released their virtualization solution was "AWESOME!!!...I can play all of those games I always want to buy...and now my daughter can buy the educational games she always wants and she can run that scooby-doo disc that came in her serial box."
But over the past 24 hours I have began to reevaluate my intial reaction. I think this is an awesome solution to a problem that us mac users have always had which is running Windows apps we can never run. However, that is good for the short term. What does this mean LONG TERM? While the big Mac OS software houses will probably not change (blizzard, adobe, etc.), this is almost certainly the end of Quicken and other medium-sized software houses. I mean those companies can't help but look at this from a business perspective which day-after-day results in them barely making their return on their Mac Software Divisions. If Quicken sells 5% of their software to Mac users, it will make much more business sense to axe their Mac OS developers and require Mac users to now "Option Boot" into Windows XP, knowing that they will probably retain half of their original Mac users that will be willing to actually do that. In the end, they save money and headcount. And if key software packages like that go away, it reduces the Mac OS as a viable alternative OS to Windows XP. Why would grandma want to boot into Mac OS X at all if she has to boot into Windows XP to do her Quicken which is very important to her...just buy a Mac and run Windows XP...
And you can just forget about those companies that work so hard to bring PC games to the Mac. I mean sure you can run them in XP on your Mac now, but that also means there is one less Mac OS software developer out there now and ultimately another win for Microsoft.
I just think we are treading on some seriously dangerous times here. While I think it does solve our problems short-term, if not dealt with carefully this could be the start of the end of Mac OS.... Sure...the Mac may still exist, but will there be a future where more people run Macs with Windows than Macs with Mac OS? And how could Apple ignore that?!?
Anyone else feel happy and concerned as I am?????
This worries me that software makers will stop making OSX versions of there software as now windows will run on a mac with no performance loss. Which by default could doom OSX which is far superior to windows. Why would any company put the cost into a port?
"AWESOME!!!...I can play all of those games I always want to buy...and now my daughter can buy the educational games she always wants and she can run that scooby-doo disc that came in her serial box."
---
Go back to school. Please. Or at least have your kid proofread these posts.
#5: One line for you:
...
resistance is futile!
Look at the bright side, maybe one day Apple will start selling OS X to PC OEM, so there goes boot camp for everyone.
all i can say is... w00t!
#6, I agree, it is the beginning of the end. From my experience as a Web developer, there is nothing we like less then having to write special codes to work on the Mac. The Internet was designed and optimized for Internet Explored on the PC. Mac owners are really second class citizens and do nopt get the same quality browsing experience as on a PC. I know because I have both. Let Apple drop the OS and save us all the headache...
hmmm.. wow, if apple starts sellign macs with only windows then it looks like windows and apple might become good friends, mac makign the hardware, and windows the operatign system... true sign of the appalypse
kibets...
That mentality is the EXACT problem with IT these days. As I do web development also I can understand your initial reaction, but you should honestly THINK about what you just said...."the Internet is designed and optimized for IE on the PC." That is what is wrong here...if you were using open-standards to begin with, it would be a problem for NOONE!! But unfortunately Microsoft has entrenched its own proprietary mindset into every corner of IT and now Apple has resorted to allowing XP to run on their hardware to deal with this very problem. I think it is sad that people want the Mac OS dissolved. That is less competition for M$ and less innovation for you as well. You have to remember that most of the things you have seen in Windows since its inception came from the competition between M$ and Apple...and without that we all suffer.
A couple of things
1. no 5 is on crack or is just plain dumb. Only one mac that can boot windows comes without a monitor because it's cheaper than all the rest. In the UK at least the imac which comes with a 500 widescreen monitor BUILT IN is stunningly good value compared to other windows machines. All indiciations are that macs are the fastest windows machines out there. The Mac BookPro for example is faster than windows machines at running a wndows version of photoshop. So your argument fails on every level.
2. To the well thought out comments from no 7, I'm not convinved that will neccesarily be the case. If more people now buy macs there are more people with OS X availible to them. Remember that Apple aren't going to include Windows with the machine you'll have to go out and buy your own copy so there's going to be a large number of mac users who don't want to spend that mpney just to run one or two apps.
The bottom line is there will be more people using OS X even if they mainly use Windows on the mac. Therefore from a devloper's point of view they should be putting more money into their mac business because there are more people using the platform.
For example imagine that Apple's market share goes up to say 7% from the current 5%, which is a conservative estimate for an increase. Now if half of those people who bought a mac because they can boot windows end up using OS X more then that's still an increase of 1% overall market share or an increase of 20% in OS X market share. Those people aren't going to want to go back to Windows, they're going to want more apps in OS X, not less. So looked at one way boot camp will encourage, or at least presents a strong argument to encourage developers to put more money into their mac divisions.
"What does this mean LONG TERM?"
One of two things: Apple dumps OSX, or Apple starts selling OSX for non-Apple hardware.
This is the beginning of the end of the old way of doing things at Apple. Not that Apple was really ever one to maintain the status quo, even when it doesn't seem to be obviously in their best interests to rock the boat (going all the way back to dumping their successful Apple II line in favor of the then-much weaker Mac in the first place). There's no way around it - there will come a day when more people are buying Macs to run Windows than OSX, and that will be an unstoppable force gathering momentum that cannot be ignored by either Apple or their software developers. (Even if 1% of Windows users buy a Mac to run Windows, that will be more than all of the current Mac users in the world. And that's not counting Mac "switchers" that own Macs now and decide to install Windows later.)
I think Apple is looking at this like "what have we got to lose?" At worst, they sell a bunch more hardware - which is still their bread and butter. Their best-case scenario is probably selling a bunch more hardware *and* turning a lot of people on to OSX - but that's not really what's going to happen and I think they know it. What's going to happen is a bunch of Windows users are going to buy Macs to run Windows. As superior as you can argue OSX is, all their software that they already own is on Windows. This is akin to Nikon releasing an adapter for their cameras to accept Canon EF lenses. Sure, it will get some Canon owners to buy Nikon cameras. But they will keep right on using their Canon lenses; I mean that's even kinda the point. They're not gonna spend thousands of dollars changing lenses when the whole reason they bought the Nikon in the first place is because it has that adapter. And it might even provoke some original Nikon users into buying that cheap Canon glass for their Nikon cameras...
So, long story short, this is either the beginning of Apple giving up on OS development, or it's the beginning of OSX as commodity software. Those are the only two possible outcomes in the long term - though it may still be five or ten years before we really get there.
Or, Apple could just pull the plug if they realize things aren't going as planned, just as they did with the Mac clone fiasco about 10 years back.
#11 "The Internet was designed and optimized for Internet Explored on the PC."
Wow, revisionist history for the internet!
I think that this will expose more people to OSX. Think about it, you buy an intel mac with the intention of just using XP, but of course people will want to check out the "other" OS on thier new computers too. Just a thought. Not that it makes any difference here in South Africa... Mac's here are insanly expensive... $3,527.549 for the 2Ghz intel core duo macbook pro!!!
"Even if 1% of Windows users buy a Mac to run Windows, that will be more than all of the current Mac users in the world."
Er, my math is obviously a little fuzzy today. Raise that to about 5% and that statement should be true.
Apple can never drop the OS for the simple fact that the OS is just simple to use. That is the selling point of the Mac. Why do PC users need 10 music applications and 300 photo managing software? The Mac OS makes it simple to listen to music, edit photos, and make movies. Each new version improves or adds new features. I would like to play some high end PC games on the mac but really, consoles fill that gap. Perhaps people in the white collar fields like PCs to crunch numbers and geeky gamers like to push FPS on games. I don't need tons of the same app with problems running on my mac.
"From my experience as a Web developer, there is nothing we like less then having to write special codes to work on the Mac" - This really should read "this is nothing we like less than having to write special codes, full stop." Everything I've written for the last three years has been designed to be as lean as possible and never, ever, under any circumstances rely on a feature from a specific browser. The result is applications that run on everything from Smartphones to desktops, on virtually any web browser that displays graphic elements, using one code base (the only mod is changing the width of some apps to suit the screen size but that's all contained in a single config file anyway). The instant I presume that all visitors to our public business web site will use IE on a Windows platform is the day I deserve to be fired and replaced with a so-green-they-need-mowing graduate.
And to all those wondering if companies will stop developing for Macs... why is this such a worry? Seriously, what's different today than at the start of the week. Macs can run Windows but it's a 100+ optional extra, it's not as if OSX suddenly had the XP code base added to every install as standard. All this will do, from the point of view of software companies, is possibly increase the number of Macs in the wild as people find it easier to do transitions from Windows environments. Now if in a year or two Mac market share is down THEN you can worry. My take on it anyway, could be wrong of course.
You can't be serious, kibets! I develop for the web as well, and I find it hardest to make websites that are compatible with IE for PC(and Mac especially)! Internet Explorer DOES NOT CONFORM TO WEB STANDARDS! Rumor has it that IE7 will "follow CSS standards", but after downloading the beta b0rked the CSS on my PC, I have little to no faith. Perhaps you should check out http://www.webstandards.org or http://www.w3.org to learn more about how miserable IE is for those who code to established standards.
Mac users only become second class citizens on the web because of people like YOU and companies that utilize crappy Windows Media Player filetypes and Microsoft's proprietary DRM.
Then again, if you're using FrontPage, I'm sure your websites look pretty awesome on a PC in IE. Ha!
You also sound like you've never used a Mac. OS X is a functional, beautiful operating system. Try it, you'll be singing a different tune.
Jeff -
Your comments are well-taken and I agree with you that these are definitely two possible outcomes. And both of them result in a new company and a new product that is drastically different than the one I fell in love with in '84 and the one I still love to this day.
The Mac OS being sold OEM to PC Manufacturers is reminiscent of NeXT desiding to do the SAME exact thing...which ultimately resulted in the downfall of NeXT altogether. Granted, Mac hardware is far more reasonably priced compared to PC's today than NeXT boxes where to PC's in their day...but still it is an erie feeling.
Apple ditching the Mac OS altogether and selling its machines with Windows on it results in die-hard people like me leaving the IT profession and taking up a completely new career path...one with paper and pencil! The thought of actually having to deal with the Registry and DLL's and Add/Remove Programs (that never works right) and BSOD's and....I am starting to get sick just thinking about it....
For the nayslayers you have to realize that the majority of people walking into the Apple retail stores are going to be PC users. If it were the other way then the retail stores would be closing around the nation as there just are not enough Mac users to support them. The question I'm sure many of the PC users are asking when they talk to the salespeople about Macs is "will this run my Windows programs?" There is just no way of getting around that. I for one believe that there will always be a core Mac user who will have little use for Windows. That really hasn't changed since the late 90's. However here is a opportunity for Apple to get those people who ask "will this run Windows" to say "yes it will". There isn't a PC on the Windows side that can compete with the Mac mini. I could of convinced my dad to buy a mini a couple of months ago if this announcement would of been made sooner. Instead he bought a big, loud, ugly PC.
I think you guys are missing the big picture. We haven't heard one thing (other than about Boot Camp) about what Apple has planned for Leopard. Wait until August, I think we're going to see they've been quietly banging away in Cupertino developing some super cool stuff for 10.5.
I just installed XP on the iMac in my kitchen this morning. Worked great, but I found myself letting out a sigh of relief when I booted it back up into OSX. Time will tell, but I highly doubt that this is going to have many current Mac users running their Macs in XP for anything other than games or the odd program not available on the Mac.
What bootcamp will do is expose a very few from both sides of the debate to each other's OS. What is likely to happen is a small percentage of that few may switch one way or the other. It's very unlikely to come close to what people are predicting.
A very few MS OS users may find things about the Mac OS they like and an equal number of Mac OS users will find that most of the rumors they've heard about XP are false.
Anyone with any curiosity at all has already used the other OS and haven't found a reason to switch so I doubt there will be more than a fraction of a percent of users who truly switch from one to the other.
I doubt this will be a coupe for anyone other than some who already own Macs and who really need to run some app that isn't currently available and there is no alternative or the people who want Mac hardware and the thousands of PC hardware designs aren't appealing to them.
"One of two things: Apple dumps OSX, or Apple starts selling OSX for non-Apple hardware."
I wont disagree with that point. Apple often touted themselves as a hardware company and that the advantage of OSX is that it's tailored for their hardware that they put together. Apple *also* said that they don't provide legacy support and that Windows is a legacy OS.
It seems Apple broke down and finally decided to provide legacy support.
The main thing that's stopping OSX from being practical on PC hardware is driver support. With OSX for x86 procs sporting EFI, that means once UEFI hardware becomes mainstream, OSX will become a VERY practical system to be installed on PCs. While there may be many people willing to buy a Mac because it can also run Windows, there are likely many more people who are dying to get a not-Linux (honestly) alternative to Windows on their DIY rigs.
One thing I *am* sure of is that OSX's market share isn't going to come anywhere near competing with Windows if the OS is still tied to very specific hardware.
So this is good for:
1) when you want to securly browse the web in public.
2) when you want to easily EASILY edit simple HD movies (that you captured with your PC side)
3) you can FINALLY get a 1" thin powerful notebook that runs windows.
Has anybody thought about the posibility that this is just a 'first move' in a series from Apple? I mean, it is their 30th, and this is a beta release. They could have just released this to stir the internets/media, get people used to the idea of windows apps on macs, but then release another update that simply allows you to run windows apps in OSX?
As someone who has both in my household, it is kind of a nice thing. This means I don't have to build my girlfriend a computer everytime I upgrade. Currently we run OSX10.3.9 on a 300 meg mac...and nicely. She plays windows games, so she uses a pc.
But she loves OSX because it isn't windows. Those who say great, who wanted OSX anyway?, I have to think that they haven't actually used it. It combines some of the best things about user interfaces,and I'll admit there are a few things I don't like, but there's a lot more I don't like about XP. Thats why I'm running Ubuntu. Once you have 6 or more desktops to separate work out onto, you never want to go back to xp. And Kubuntu's been rock solid stable. But I wish I could run OSX on normal hardware. It seems that Mac is letting the tiger in their court but not unleashing their's. No pun intended. If they released OSx for everyone, lots of people would buy it because they are sick of Microsoft. That's why Linux is doing so well. And people would still buy their Mini's because of their size and power, and their Imac's because of their cool formfactor, and their Macbooks because of their nice features, and especially their multiprocessor systems, because face it, what other home desktop producing company has offered a dual dual core system on the market (4 processor cores)? You don't see microsoft doing it...or dell, or Alienware, Gateway, or Micron. Sure they are expensive, but they are also backed by a warranty and a company that's been doing hardware since the 1970's. That counts for something.
If I could have a pc that is the size of a mini doing everything for 800 bucks with a dvd burner, 100gigs of hard drive and a gig of ram AND dual core for 800$ (latest Mac Mall price) I think that's a steal when you consider it's the size of a small stack of Cd's. For those web developers out there, finally they can cross platform on one box to test web pages and use tools. Try OSX, its great (I have used windows since it came out, unfortunately (sometimes))...I think most people will be pleasantly suprised when they check it out. Windows seems clunky by comparison.
Just an FYI, with MacDrive loaded, I was able to run my iTunes library from Windows (include purchased music, once I authorized the machine).
And the right-click is a pain, you have to get a program to do that for you. It was linked in the last post boot camp.
Does this mean I can finally run mythtv on a mac?
This really makes me want a MacBook Pro...and some Apple stock. ;-)
This is actually great news. I've been wanting a media center PC for a while, but nothing really was small enough and aesthetically pleasing to me. Looks like a Mac Mini will be the perfect solution now.
If anything, professional users will continue doing what they do - whether it is developing on a PC or creatives on Macs, there's no doubt about it. I'm happy to have reason to buy a Mac again so that I can have my Windows when I need it.
Think again, though, of where Macs are heading - cheap mac minis that include a multitude of simple digital applications (web publishing that integrates with consumer digital photos, movies that can be edited and burned to dvd). Add in the Media Center-esque Front Row application with its included remote, and it's a great all-in-one that can attract novice users.
Apple's still trying to get people to "switch", but they need to pull out some serious stops to gain more users. Integrating their computers with their software, gadgets (iPods and the potential iPhone) really calls for a full solution, but doesn't have the "Me only!" mentality of Microsoft.
"I hope Apple starts selling these Macs w/o OSX installed so I can save a few bucks and just get XP / Vista."
Nice one flameboy.
I think this definitely sounds the death knell for 1 group of Mac software developers. That would be the companies that adapt Windows games to the Mac. At this point, it's quite likely that most people wanting to play games on the Mac will opt for the dual boot into Windows so they have the large choice of Windows games vs. the limited choice of Mac games.
Yes, a small market for Mac native games will remain. It's likely to become so small, however, that many shops might need to just close up.
This just confirms my belief that the purpose of Windows was to 'replace' the Mac which, for 90% of the world, it has.
How else do you explain the race to get the new Mac hardware to run Windows?
Even though all of the major applications in the world are available on Mac and Windows, people obviously prefer to run them under Windows rather than the Mac OS.
Nobody is offering prizes for the first person to boot OSX on a Dell are they?
Personally, as any good poster, I think everyone else is wrong...
But seriously, I think we're all missing the key to this. When everyone said there'd be no way Apple would release iTunes for Windows, it was because it was thought that would keep people from buying a Mac - but it didn't do that. Mac sales post-iPod and iTunes for Windows are through the roof. People saw iTunes, used an iPod, were intrigued, and then walked into an Apple store or something and tried a Mac - something they may never have done if they hadn't used iTunes + iPod on their Windows machine.
This is similar - people will get tired of dual-booting, will want some of the interface features of OS X into Windows (like how I also trying to see the desktop by moving my mouse into the corner of the screen when I switch to my work laptop w/ Windows), etc. This is just to get people a taste of Mac. It worked with iTunes + iPod, it'll work here.
Apple >>> Windows.
It's already possible to run OSX on a Dell...
We are in for a major deluge of Vista versus Leopard adverts in the coming year.
Here's my prediction on how part of this will go down.
-There are a lot of "Joe Users" who always want the latest OS.
-A good portion of old PCs will not run Vista in its full glory.
-Apple will entice Windows users with the idea that they can dual boot. Many Windows users will buy a Mac with the intention of dual booting.
-Your average "Joe User" only needs to do basic things like write e-mail, browse the web, listen to music, burn discs, etc.
-Out of ignorance or laziness, many of those Windows users adapt to OSX. Lots of them never figured out how to properly use Windows anyhow so it's no big loss.
#37 dextro wrote "It's already possible to run OSX on a Dell..."
Which may be true but...it appears that nobody cares because there obviously hasn't been a huge jump to Mac OSX by Windows users.
Some commentators have noted that Apple probably would have gone under if it hadn't been for investment by Microsoft to prop them up. Microsoft needed to have the Mac OS in the market in order to disprove claims of an OS monopoly.
Yes, but can it load DOS 6.22?
Oh great now I can run xp on a mac. Still not good enough! How about letting me customize it and not be forced buy from 2 or 3 versions (ram size doesn't count). Let me put an AMD X-2 processor in it with two nvidia gfx in sli mode. And then it better have the ability to allow me to further upgrade it for any reason. God just sell me an empty case. Oh wait, I can buy one that looks like it.
Come on, you are better off buying a cheap pc or building it yourself (millions of guides on the web) and just downloading a theme modification to make xp look like os.
From the original story...
...yes, with MacDrive you can definitely share your iTunes library between platforms. Just store it on the Mac partition and point iTunes for Windows to the proper location that you have it at.
I told engadget before this whole bussiness with mac and apple is no diffrent then hp and compaq..
i been telling you guys i have an inside scoop for both companys and its been confirmed internally-apple no longer exist-look at the big picture of whats going on..
thats all i will say...is amazing at the power microsoft have wow....poor mac fans if you only knew where your money is going to hahaha.
isnt it funny that everytime i mention microsoft owning apple my post gets deleted??? it happened like 5 times already..engadget knows asomething they aint telling you???
i am Nostradamus and i can predict the future. The end of the world is coming.
haha on a brighter note. Who cares? Why are people worrying for nothing if it 's meant ot be it's meant to be. Just let the innovations continue.
Responding to some comments up at the top...
1) The Internet was not designed for Internet Explorer. Stupid standards of encoding were designed for it.
2) This is not the beginning of the end. This is the beginning of people who realize, hey, I can get that beautiful laptop now and run Windows as I need to for work... And I'll check OSX out... And wow, waitaiminnit, OSX is amazing. All of a sudden I'm doing everything in OSX except for that one app for work. And also, they're going to notice how much hassle free and secure OSX is.
That's what this is about. Getting people to keep the standard enforced on them by work, but opening their eyes to the benefits of OSX.
How do I know this? I used to scratch build my own PCs and be a Windows zealot and hated Macs. Now I cringe every time I have to jump on a Windows machine, or fix a friend's problem on one. I had to switch to a Mac for work, and I've never looked back.
#13, you are so freaking wrong. The Internet was NOT designed with IE in mind, websites were done to fit IE's broken tags and interpretation.
Firefox is the most accurate browser in the world and you should know it...what kind of website designer are you?
Please, get Firefox, for either Mac or PC and STOP BITCHING about moot points. IE sucks outright!
its very simple.. steve made boot camp for all the people who wanted to buy a nice mac.. but were afraid to switch to mac os x..
one way or another they will try OS X ..and we all know that windows sucks.. so they will never look back..
boot camp will make an obvious boost in mac sales..(michael dell must be grabbing his head right now)
only a moron would say that is the end of mac os x.. when its really the big beginning.
Let me provide a developer's perspective.
1) If Apple puts this technology into the OS, then developers will cease to write Mac specific software with the exception of software that is aimed at the true Mac user - ie. marketing has determined that more Mac than PC users would be interested in that category of software - ie, existing Mac vertical markets - of which there are few.
2) I don't care Mac or PC, however I can tell you that the new Vista on a properly configured system is absolutely gorgeous and amazing. For those willing to go that route - it will be a true step up from the Mac experience. That said, the Mac is still the best "out of the box in 5 minutes" experiences out there. So, for the less savvy computer users, the Mac still has significant allure. (And no, the Mac will not provide a FULL Vista experience).
3) And this where I give Bill G. credit, this is a SOFTWARE business. Hardware is a low-margin, hard to stay on top for long business. Software is a high-margin, create standards business. The best thing for Apple to do if this begins to take off, is immediately offer OSX for Intel processors at less than Windows retail cost. Next - bundle with Dell, etc. Then I will buy Apple stock.
I personally think this turn of events continues to be positive for consumers and confirms that PCs and Macs have grown to be isomorphic from the hardware perspective. I don't think Apple has much choice about XP running on Macs, and has decided to take the high road, which actually appeals to techies all the more. Now if Microsoft takes the low road and spoils the party, people will be even more inexplicably enraged at them. (I think a lot of that rage has to do with the fact that many people sit at Windows PCs all day at work; but that's another issue.)
I agree with #24's comment: most people who are thinking about picking up a Mac are Windows users (just by the numbers; hence, the mini). And if they do pick up a Mac, they will still have an older PC anyway. If you know that you can potentially ditch your older PC (or turn it into an internet terminal) for a FASTER computer that runs both Windows and OSX (and hopefully Vista and MCE), that's going to make PC users much more comfortable with buying a mini or iMac. It's a way of justifying getting a nicely designed computer and ditching an older PC while holding onto investments in software and peripherals. PC builders and gamers will miss being able to incrementally upgrade and may pass on this whole thing, but most people never want to build a PC, no matter how much cheaper it is.
In reality, I think most casual or home users who dual boot will find that they gradually are not using the XP boot most of the time and may just switch over the OSX. I think most will agree that you dual boot when you need to, not for fun. And when it comes time to buying new hardware or software upgrades for Vista (including the upgrade to Vista itself) or investing in software for OSX, they'll be in a good position to choose, which means competition, which is also good for the consumer.
I've used both Macs and Windows PCs extensively, and to me it seems that Apple has a lot going for it right now, and that the desirability of the new line of Macs to PC users has already been significant. In general, simply because most people work on Windows, OSX can be a nice break from the work environment. Apple also offers a lot of built in functionality (i.e., included software apps and/or cheap bundles), which for the average consumer is a good value that may offset the cost of the hardware. (It comes up in budget laptop reviews, that the iBook has pretty much what most people need without additional expense). However, Microsoft, as the 800lb. juggernaut, is subject to different expectations and has repeatedly gotten in trouble for trying to integrate IE into XP... because of course we all want to run Netscape but can't figure out how to do it.
Apple has been scoring big in a number of ways:
- they put the core duo into "wide release" while the PC market is lagging behind here, making the Intel Macs a genuine upgrade (hardware wise) for many PC users, and not just a crossover or voluntary performance hit
- with the new CPU, Macs have BOTH design and processing speed going for them, whereas design for PCs is just picking up (SFF cases, the AOpen mini, and now the UMPC)
- the closest competitor to the mini, made by AOpen, runs a Pentium M and costs significantly more than the mini, making the mini as desirable to non-Mac users at Apple built it to be. All those people upset about the lack of TV tuner on the mini were NOT Mac users; most were PC users who don't want to bother with the whole HTPC/MCE complexity and expense...meaning they were hoping that Apple would pull them in.
To give one concrete example in which Bootcamp makes buying an Intel Mac more desirable than upgrading a PC: check out www.createdigitalmusic.com for what they are posting regarding Bootcamp: they want to know if they can run XP music apps at full speed. Bootcamp may be the perfect solution for some professional audio purposes. Here are some reasons behind this:
- Computer musicians running Intel Macs are impressed by the speed of the new Macs but are waiting on software optimizations, native drivers, etc. There's a ton of software developers and hardware companies that have to make this switch in order to benefit fully from Intel CPUs on the OSX side.
- Second, many music applications are OS dedicated, while many are dual platform. Studios tend to either pick one platform or try to provide multiple platforms to increase compatibility. The flexibility of a dual XP/OSX boot may be helpful in getting important software to run when you want it, or in transferring projects from one system to another, depending on the user and who they collaborate with.
- Third, many XP computer musicians dual boot XP already; one partition for internet access, games, and what not, and the other stripped down and optimized for audio only (partly for performance reasons, partly out of fear of viruses destroying hundreds of hours of work). So dual booting is just not that big a deal for professional audio purposes.
- It is basically impossible to find a PC laptop with a 6 pin Firewire port, meaning you can't power a FW audio interface without power cables. But FW audio interfaces are much less CPU heavy and give more stable performance than USB audio interfaces and are very much favored. That alone makes a MacBook Pro running XP a must-have for some live musicians or recording engineers who are invested in expensive Windows software and plugins. And then an OSX partition can be used for internet access for the virus-paranoid. And the performance will be absolutely smoking for a portable notebook audio workstation.
Windows continues to have Tablet OS and MCE as features that Apple hasn't addressed in its lineup. Apple should totally piggyback onto the UMPC and tablet PCs by trying to run a tablet edition of OSX on tablet PCs, especially if they are planning to release a hardware tablet at the same time or soon after. My vote is, let the hardware be hardware, and let's get some competition in the areas of basic computing features, data file compatibility, hardware compatibility, and full support of portable electronic devices for all consumers.
There already has been a significantly smaller amount of software (especially games) being sold for Mac OS. Now out comes boot camp... Software developement for Mac OS goes out the window and developement companies enjoy more sales in the Windows division along side massive savings by not having to pay a Mac developer division. With the complete lack of developers for Mac OS, Mac is left with 2 choices:
1)Start developing more software (at a (probably) large expense) for their OS because no one else will
2)Scrap Mac OS and go strictly into harware, essentially forfitting the OS battle to Microsoft (and the runnner-up, Linux)
Obviously Apple's going to enjoy quite a boost in harware sales and maybe short-term company profits, but in the end I think that their OS is going to suffer for this move.
Basically Apple was screwed as soon as the released Intel Powered iMacs because of the inevitable solutions (Narf and Blanka) to dual-booting on a Mac.
So either Apple profits from hardware sales immensly and manages to keep developers for their OS and the company does OK, or they end up "losing" the OS battle and their developers are lost. Either way... it's going to be an interesting couple of years what with the release of Windows Vista coming up.
My solution: Don't release a non-beta version of Boot Camp until just before the Vista launch (or when hype is peaked for Vista) and then release the full, non-beta version of Boot Camp with NO SUPPORT for Vista. That way hardcore Windows users either stick with Windows, and those who have been using the Beta (and Blanka and Narf's solution) will become more accustomed to Mac OS. That way they can still win some Windows enthusiasts to the Apple Fanboy side, and they can keep people using Windows XP further hurting Window's profits from Vista's launch...
I think there _might be_ an analogy for this OSX/Windows boot thing in the previous switch from OS 9 to Mac OS X. Just because another OS is available on your machine with more software available for it doesn't mean you're going to use it most of the time. I think the overall pleasantness of using OSX will win the day...for people who want that kind of thing. Everybody else who still uses XP will simply use XP, likely on non-Apple hardware, and there's no market share loss. Worry not, my friends.
However, I do get the feeling that Apple might, indeed, have something bigger up their sleeve. And _that_ is a little scary.
A few more thoughts, then I'm done:
1. If it takes one guy and $13,000 to get XP to run on an Intel Mac within a few weeks of their release, what will it take to get OSX onto a PC? Has it not happened because yet because no one cares?
2. If OSX makes it to a PC (which is expected), will that be a loss for Linux, since OSX brings UNIX along with it?
3. In general, people are happier with non-upgradeable computers, I think for multiple reasons. Computers are unnecessarily powerful for everyday tasks. And the upgrade cycle combined with Moore's Law combined with upgrade costs and complexity means that it's easier to buy a new computer. Especially now with the near simultaneous introduction of PCI-E/SLI, SATA, BT 2.0, etc. And a lot of people (especially families) have multiple PCs anyway, which may co-exist because of the last reason: it's easier and often economical to buy another computer.
4. If this keeps up, a core duo 13.3" Mac notebook would be hot, unbelievably so. Depending on the price, there's little to compete in the PC market. The plan behind the Intel Mac release schedule is better than people give Apple credit for. The mini and the iMac have no direct PC competitors. The MacBook Pro is a slightly ahead of its time notebook that finally provides Mac users a fast and relatively power efficient notebook. All have inherent high desirability because of need or novelty, which an upgrade to the dual core G5 wouldn't have to generic consumers. And now a 13.3" notebook (hopefully with a core duo upgrade option)... it makes a lot of sense.
With the exception of the few people in the market for a first computer and the few "desktop Linux" independents, I'd say the market breaks into two segments:
(A) The 95% of buyers who are "Windows People". Maybe they have heard about how a Mac is "safer" but they're reluctant to take the plunge and replace software that would be useless on a Mac ... useless until yesterday.
(B) The 5% of buyers who are "Mac People". These people generally made the decision a while ago to go Mac and never look back. But they know that there is some software out there that won't run on OS X.
Note that few people in (A) have any real experience with OS X. Conversely, many people in (B) have used Windows a lot, perhaps every day at work, for example. But they still bought Mac.
Which segment do you think is more likely to learn something new and make the switch? Probably the "Windows People", don't ya think?
OK, let's say this really goes against Apple. Say only 2% of Windows users switch to Mac, and fully 10% of Mac users switch to Windows. Apple would lose 10% x 5% = 0.5% share from (B) but gain 2% x 95% = 1.9% share from (A).
From the way I see it, it's hard for Apple to lose on this one.
- Ed
I have XP Pro installed on MacBook Pro, but there are a handful of small but significant issues that prevent someone from using it as Windows machine confortably.
1) There is no way to generate a right-click in Windows. An external mouse can solve this, but it's inconvenient. Software can also fix this, but I'm not aware of any software available.
2) Macs have a "Delete" key, which actually corresponds to a "Backspace" key on a full keyboard. There is no equivalent to the "Delete" key on a full keyboard. This means that there is no way to delete files from Explorer, delete objects in various programs, etc. This is a serious drawback, and although software can remap the key, you would then lose the Backspace functionality. In case you're wondering, Ctrl/Alt/Option/fn+Delete don't result in any helpful behavior.
3) Ctrl+Alt+Delete doesn't work, so if a process hangs it's not possible to get to the Task Manager (further aggravated by the fact that I can't right-click on the Task Bar to bring it up without an external mouse).
Unfortunately, Apple's general approach of under-delivering on features in order to simplify--they give you about 80% of what advanced users really want, but that 80% works really well for the masses--screws us in the Windows world. Just give me two more hardware buttons and I'd be quite happy.
Pinkerton, a couple of problems with your analysis. The majority of "Joe Users" as you refer to them (good as any term) actually don't want the latest version of OS and in fact stay with the one preloaded on their machine for the life of that machine. And corporations which are a huge piece of the OS pie are even more likely to stick with the preinstalled OS.
And when they do need a new machine few "Joe Users" are going to want to buy hardware and OS sepperately. And corporations would laugh at the idea. If they need a Mac for what they do they'll buy a Mac and if they need Windows they'll buy WinPCs.
Add to this the fact that the perceptions about both OS's are deeply intrenched. Mac users are feel that Windows OS's are inferior and PC users feel that Macs are overpriced. The market for dual-boot has been way overstated the last couple of days.
The market is a very few people who either want to dual boot for the "hey look I did it" factor and a few people who have apps that don't run on the Mac OS.
ok, this hasa few implications...in no paticular order.
1st, with windows an official option to run on macs, more mac hardware stands to be sold, aka more money for apple. this is good for them.
2nd, all macs still ship with OSX...its not going anywhere. last time i checked, you cant buy a mac without an OS. why wouldn't someone use 'free'(since you can't not get a osx'less mac) os that came preinstalled on their mac at least as an option?
3rd, Apple will never sell windows directly. they do not, and will not support windows, period. so if you use windows only on your mac, they save money on support costs. again, more money for apple, good for them.
4th, developers will still sell for osx. they would be comitting suicide by cutting osx development. if they said "to use our product, you first gotta buy windows" will deter most, if not all mac customers. Granted, no company survives on mac software sales alone, but it's bad PR.
Apple is a smart company, i'm sure they know what they are doing and will pull this off successfully.
What would be suicide for apple would be a fully native windows xp software compatibility layer which is rumored to be in production. mac OSX wont survive without the software written for OSX. if you can run quicken for windows, in osx, at full native speed...why should intuit bother with making a osx version? but if you gotta jump through hoops to make thewindows version run, or it runs poorly, then there's a market for the osx version. with no software market for osx, then, and only then, will osx be at risk of dying.
Is Windows XP on a FAT32 volume visible from within OSX?
Tons of Windows users have tried out Macs. They're in the Apple Store every day, stroking and caressing iPods, playing with the iMac (especially that camera application), trying out Garage Band, and checking their email at the mall for free. And the employees are happier and nerdier (I mean more knowledgeable) than the ones at Best Buy or Comp USA, which resembles a warehouse. I think Apple's overall strategy is working consistently well since they opened up retail stores and brought the iPod to Windows. That's what gets Apple's target market in range of their employees and exposes them to other products Apple is designing to entice PC users while keeping its user base.
Here's my take on this:
On the Intel Macs, Apple dumped the Classic environment and replaced it with the ability to run Windows XP/Vista. To me, that's more like Apple saying that Windows is a legacy OS, and that Mac OS X is the future. They're so confident that OS X is better that they're willing to allow users the option of booting into a outdated OS every once in a while, the same as with Classic.
This won't affect the future of OS X, except to expand the user base. Most people will use Windows XP on their Mac to play a game, or run a program that's stingy or unavailable on OS X. I myself can see running this just to play City of Heroes, which is never going to be ported to OS X. Once I'm done playing CoH for a while, I'll boot back into OS X and get some work done.
In other words, Windows XP is the "toy" and OS X is the serious work environment. I can't see bothering to have my music on the Windows partition, and I can't even imagine bothering to use the web browser in WinXP. I'll just run a bare, nearly-empty WinXP configured for gaming. Period. All the extra junk in Windows will be history. This will basically just turn my Mac into a OS X system that runs DirectX games.
And to those griping about the Mac mini not coming with a monitor: First of all, I don't remember PCs coming with monitors included until AFTER Apple released the first iMac, and before that Apple was still selling Perfomas and Classics with monitors built in. PCs started including monitors as a part of the package (built-in or not) much later. I know. I used to sell them, and the whole point was that the monitor was an ADD-ON, treated as a must-have accessory instead of as part of the system.
But lets say you bought a system, and a monitor, and now you're ready to upgrade to a new computer. Why replace the monitor? Why pay a built-in price for something you ALREADY PAID FOR? If your monitor works, why replace it? That's where the Mac mini is a smart system, and that's why I bought one. I have my Xbox 360 hooked to a 19" monitor (when it's not on the 27" HDTV) and the monitor has dual-inputs. I can hook up two sources to it. Why should I buy a computer that comes with a monitor when I already have this state-of-the-art, beautiful LCD screen in my possession?
My Mac mini is now hooked to the DVI input of my Samsung 930B, and when I want to play a game on the 360 while someone's watching TV, all I have to do is switch to the VGA input by pressing a button, and I'm there. For me, to pick up an iMac would have been a redundant purchase. I'd be paying for another monitor I didn't need, didn't have room for, and one that didn't have an additional input for my Xbox 360.
The average monitor included with a PC package is NOT a dual-input DVI/VGA system. It's a lame, cheap 15" LCD with VGA input. That's not value. That's a cheap-ass add-on I shouldn't be compelled to pay for. (and that's another place where Apple's better. The monitors included with their built-in systems are GORGEOUS DVI LCD monitors, even if they don't have additional inputs they're still quite nice.)
My mini rocks. I love the thing. It's fast, small, QUIET, cool-running, and can burn dual-sided DVDs as easily as it can connect to a WiFi network with built-in 802.11b/g. It has bluetooth, firewire, multiple USB 2.0 ports, some great software, and a Dual Core CPU that is upgradable. Oh yeah... And it can boot into Windows if I want it to.
Show me a Windows PC that can do all that for under $800, with the OS, software suites, and other bonuses (802.11g/b, bluetooth, etc.) included. At the very best, you won't find one that can run OS X reliably, so to me, the Mac mini was the most versatile purchase choice I could make.
If I'd bought a Windoze PC (ha!) I'd be stuck waiting for Vista, squashing bugs, loading antivirus software, and managing drivers, and I wouldn't have half the functions of the Mac mini. No thanks.
#56 Ed said:
"Say only 2% of Windows users switch to Mac, and fully 10% of Mac users switch to Windows. Apple would lose 10% x 5% = 0.5% share from (B) but gain 2% x 95% = 1.9% share from (A).
From the way I see it, it's hard for Apple to lose on this one."
Let's take a mythical number of 20 million Mac users and 500 million Windows users. That's not for real but it's somewhere in the planetary neighborhood -- I couldn't google up any numbers in a reasonable amount of time.
.5% of 20 million is 100,000
1.9% of 500 million is 9.5 million
I'd also say it's a good trade. Assuming the real numbers are anywhere near my guesses. There's probably more users in each group.
Realistically I doubt 10% of Mac users are going to switch to Windows. Likewise, I don't think nearly 2% of Windows users would switch to Mac.
It's all about price...watch Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc. reduce prices if Apple makes headway. Apple is forced to reduce prices too, which reduces profitability. Mac developers jump ship. It will be the death of a thousand cuts for Apple.
THIS IS THE BOTTOM LINE
If it wasn't for apple Windows would suck, If it wasn't for apple's ingenuity all of our nifty gadgets and cell phones would suck. Apple has been the lonely runner in the front of the race. But of course, it could end up like the Tortoise and the Hair. Microsoft being the tortoise. but i think not.
OS X is the most incredible GUI out in the market. Its for everyone, easy to program and beautiful.
This is a good move by apple, but I bet you this. When people buy macs to use windows, and start using OS X, they will be BLOWN away by its awsomeness and will end up realizing the truth. You can't look OS X in the eyes and not marvel at its beauty and elegance.
all you mac haters, I don't get you guys. keep using your XP but atleast give Apple the props they deserve. they created what science-fiction writers in the early 1900's probably envisioned to be the computer interface of the future. (you know what I mean...its freaking sweet...nobody envisioned the blue-screen of death and the shotty-ness of windows) And its just the beginning!! OS X will get better and be LIGHT YEARS ahead of Microsoft.
END OF STORY.
#11 "The Internet was designed and optimized for Internet Explored on the PC."
Mac users had a TCP stack more than 8 years before a PC could even get on the internet. The first common web browser, Mosaic, came out in 1993, long before Windows 95.The internet was designed on open standards largely from the unix world.
#17 "For example imagine that Apple's market share goes up to say 7% from the current 5%"
In reality, Apples worldwide market share is 2.13%. The sold 18,000 more macs in Q1 of 2006 than they did in Q4 of 2005. PC sales by around 3.5 million in the same quarter.
Why would a windows user want to pay a $200 premium just so he can run windows on an already "over priced" (so they constantly claim) Apple computer? They can just buy a cheap Dell and be in windows heaven. (if such a place exists)
Answer: Sombody who's currently fed up with windows, and wants to try a Mac, without the risk of losing everything they've invested in windows. Blood, sweat and tears, and software.
It's all about the iLife, the Front Row, the Digital Hub, baby! Yeah.
"From my experience as a Web developer, there is nothing we like less then having to write special codes to work on the Mac. The Internet was designed and optimized for Internet Explored on the PC."
WTF? WTF??? I call "fake" on this clown. No Web developer with half a functional brain cell would claim the Internet was designed for IE. What a load of MicroCrap.
Ballmer, is that you?
Refering to comment No 45.: "Come on, you are better off buying a cheap pc or building it yourself (millions of guides on the web) and just downloading a theme modification to make xp look like os."
Did you mean - to make xp look like AN os?
Neither Firefox, nor IE or Safari are perfect, nor do any of them stick to web standards, but they all cause headaches, because webdevs have to try them all!
(dont worry about my perfect English, Ive been living in Germany for 20 years)
Boot Camp is good news. It will give the opportunity to people who see themeselves enslaved with Windows applications (for work, business management, ...) to use a Mac for all the other daily tasks that are better on OS X, and without having two machines. Let's not forget most people who own Windows machines do so because some IT freak-manager at work decided that Windows was the way to go.
"I hope Apple starts selling these Macs w/o OSX installed so I can save a few bucks and just get XP / Vista."
#8 the whole point is that you need to run bootcamp before you can use xp. and bootcamp is an osx application.
For those who are wondering (and seem to ask over and over):
1) The OSX partition can read the Windows partition, and can Read&Write if it's FAT32 (read only if NTFS).
2) The Windows partition can read and write to the OSX partition, if the 3rd party software MacDrive (http://www.mediafour.com/products/macdrive6/) is the way to go. It'll let you fully read the HFS/HFS+ filesystems.
3) Right clicking in windows can be used with either an external mouse, or with the installation of a 3rd party app like http://www.geocities.com/pronto4u/applemouse.html . The only downside is that Control+Click on windows has other uses, which are the same as the standard Shift+Click on a Mac (that is, to select individual files), so such software might prove to be more annoying than previously thought.
Any questions?
Wow so will this get the apple computer out of a slump. I have to admidt I'd rather use XP then OSX. This is probably a smart business move for apple. Seems like they know they can't sell Ipods forever. The marriage of XP and a Mac mechine is what we all wanted forever
The more I think about this, the more I think it's increasingly false to assume that people are either PC users or Mac users. Some people have multiple OS's, including multiple Windows OS's (some technical users are still on Windows 2000 or even 98), or Windows at home and Mac at work, or OSX and OS9. Enough people have experienced the pain of upgrading on both Windows and Mac that they will often leave something set up to work and leave it that way. And, increasingly we're seeing home wifi networks with NAS devices, specialized systems for multimedia purposes, gaming, entertainment, PCs in multiple rooms for convenience, etc. If you optimize one computer for heavy duty photo and video storage and editing, you won't necessarily want to surf the web or play games on it. You may want a bedroom computer to run off an LCD TV just to check the web and stream media from a network. Why would you ever upgrade that computer?
So, yes, I would consider XP to be a legacy OS, and for both MS and Apple, the issue now is twofold: to give new users (increasingly these are children, not adults... I got an Apple IIe when I was about ten) a useful set of functions, and to entice current users of perfectly good systems to "upgrade": that is, buy more stuff. If you keep your XP system alive for the next ten years, MS pays for that in updates and security fixes (kind of... they have to do it anyway for corporations). The next big computational step for consumers after HD video is going to be what.... holographic projection? Facial expression and gesture recognition? Do you really want to watch BluRay movies on every PC you own, or anywhere other than your home theater set up? Computers are not 100% saturated in the US, but at this point both PCs and Macs have to appeal to new users as well as entice current users to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade.
In the end, companies want you to buy their products. Sometimes when it comes to evaluating gadgets, people get disappointed and forget the basic fact that companies want sales. You see this same faulty logic when it comes to evaluating the UMPC, for example. Skeptics say, "The UMPC is nothing new and costs too much. MS sucks for not being able to do this right, they should have stuck with 'Origami', and I'm going to buy another Windows PC instead of this stupid UMPC... take that, Microsoft!" What? For MS, the UMPC is a low risk venture: they opened up their five year old software to new devices they don't make and advertised by internet with a two year old video. And if you don't get a UMPC and get another Windows PC instead, well, you just paid MS anyway.
Similarly, does either Microsoft or Apple really get hurt if you buy a new Intel Mac and a new copy of XP Pro to use together? And then if you start getting software for both OS's, or buy a Vista OS upgrade, or iLife and FrontRow for XP (I'm guessing), or pick up a copy of iWork, or the matching bluetooth keyboard?
For a company like Apple with such a small share of the computer market, a major relative boost in sales can be a cash windfall that can go into R&D, advertising, riskier products, patent development, etc. Apple is running off the iPod anyway, so more computer sales just adds to that income. As others have pointed out, any and all factors that statistically increase the likelihood of a never-bought-a-Mac-before consumer to pick up a Mac could mean a large relative increase in sales. Windows likewise would not be hurt that badly relative to its own numbers, especially if a handful of people are getting XP Pro just to dual boot (think "rounding error").
I personally think both companies have it a little right and a little wrong. Computers are more like lifestyle devices increasingly, and Apple knows that well from the design standpoint, extending over both their hardware and their software. The mini is a great little computer: it can go anywhere in your house on wifi, has BT built in for wireless interface devices (adding up to one power cable and one video cable), has a wireless remote, has all basic functionality bundled, is fast and economical, and runs off of like 10W of power. The iMac form factor is also great and a house full of them is a wifi video intercom system that fits in a small space, perfect for a baby monitor. All similarly designed PCs (by Sony) have never been popular, I think because they are expensive, constantly outdated, and have limited upgrade options, which is not what you get a PC for. OS-wise, the integration of widgets and the use of funciton keys to clear the desktop is awesome. Finally, Apple is being very smart about iPod development by staying one step ahead of the competition, moving into the accessories market, and the development of a multitouch and gestural interface.
MS is more on the ball when it comes to support for HD video, PVR capabilities, and mass storage device media players and subscription services, the upcoming sideshow display, the recognition that you need a different keyboard/mouse and a multifunction remote control for a living room PC, integrating the Xbox with MCE, the development of carryable PCs, and of course the two button mouse. (I really can't understand how Steve Jobs can be okay with the one button mouse... it's insane... we should be way past the two button stage by now). And I think they deserve big points for Tablet OS: MS is dead on accurate about the fact that we should be able to write text and record audio and turn that into digital, serachable content.
In general, both companies need to be more attentive to the multi-device networking environment, user customization, and data synchronization. Computers don't work that easily together for the consumer. If you have multiple computers in your home, every family member should be able to pull up their custom profile, customized settings, and data from any computer in the house. If you have a desktop / notebook / tablet combination, you should be able to meaningfully and easily synchronize data between them, economically and legally install the same software on paired PCs, assign them master and slave status, etc. (Bill Gates's recent critique of the UMPC is that it would be a good second PC but that data synchronization between PCs needs to improve.) For home applications, multiple users should be able to share the same database from multiple locations (like a family schedule, contacts organizer, etc.). And you should be able to pick up a wireless slate or notebook style client PC and VNC to any other computer on your network as a built in, easy to use feature (so that you can download to your main iTunes library from the bathroom).
If the Apple KB and mouse doesn't have what it takes for XP, maybe you can see how well a PC keyboard works on the OSX boot (I imagine it would be fine). Logitech has one OSX compatible KB/M (it's the white one), and their SetPoint application seems to be able to accomodate all of their PC compatible keyboards. So perhaps the OSX drivers would work for their PC compatible keyboards, or vice versa. The diNovo BT desktop would be perfect. Ask Logitech for full dual OS support. They seem like a nice, consumer oriented company.
I thought if you formatted in FAT32, you could access the partition?
#50. It doesn't matter if you think IE sucks or not. The fact is that it is the status quo. As a designer, you have to think about IE first, then everything else second.
Wait wait wait,
Didn't i hear somewhere that 10.5 is supposed to run windows apps inside of osx at full speed (no emulation or duel booting)?
If that's true (which it could most likely be) No Freakin ANYBODY will run windows! You could just run alllllllllllll of the windows/mac apps in 1 os!!!
That is where we are all really going!!!! OSX is not doomed whatsoever
Windows has just been nominated off the island. (well unless mista gates realizes that, he might make an easy duel boot for windows based comps to boot osx)
Just to let you windows users all know. I have a pentium 4 3ghz and a mac g4 850mhz
Any day i would rather use my mac. The only reason i have the pc is to run music, play a few lan games, and browse the net.
I cant stand pcs. slow as crap, inferior, bad color schemed, pointless windowsOS
ps. Not every app that runs on macs run on pcs. just most of the good games..
There are many many freeware apps on macs that dont exist in free form on pc
If you are a freakin gamer and thats all you do, stay on windows, OSX if for the creative type, ya know art (shooting people's faces off is not art)
Sweet, now i can get rid of the big ugly box sitting under my desk at uni and replace it with a piece of art courtesy of Apple. All i keep my PC for is games and a few key apps, that is all. Im sure there will be a lot of people out there who prefer Apple's operating system. Like me, many of my friends own Apple laptops, yet own PCs to run windows only applications. One of my friend's was going to buy a PC this week and is already having a rethink, he now wants a new Mac. Releasing Boot Camp and hearing reports that Leopard will come with a finished version, has opened up the possibility of people owning only Apple hardware, which is something Ive always wanted. My generation is the future for companies such as Apple. Everybody who sees my iBook and has a fiddle in Uni tells me that they wish it would run windows. Now it can!
The majority of people are comfortable with their OS and won't find a reason to try bootcamp much less switch. But if the hyperbole here is any indication there is one thing that is guaranteed to happen when Mac users try bootcamp. If they use XP like they use a Mac they will find that the rumors they're hearing and telling are simply false. The 2 likely scenarios are
1. XP users try MacOS and its impossible to live up to the hype.
2. Mac users use XP and its impossible for it to be as bad as they have been told.
Oh, and Spiffy, seriously if you don't like the color scheme be creative and choose your own colors. It only takes seconds. And if PCs are pointless don't use one. It really is that simple.
To NTFS suggestion: NTFS is copyrighted, and probably patented, by M$. Apple would be in a BIG bind if they even attempted to support it. The linux NTFS group has to be careful themself, but being open source and GNU -- it's a bit different; legal-wise.
To #14 about IE: You're not a web developer. Plain and simple. If you think IE is web development. You don't deserve to be programming. But then again, using frontpage isn't programming, or even developing. Go back to school where you learned your horrible "developer's" skills, and even THERE they're trying to push standards (but college's still suck in web development -- M$ pays them off too well). I'm a PHP programmer and web designer for local sheriff's office. My manager/director requires everything we make to work in IE (of course). All of us developers, we use FireFox. I would like to see you, as a real developer -- not using FrontPage, make a rich-content JavaScript website using notepad or a syntax highlighting program, make a page (and DEBUG it) in Internet Explorer and take less than 3 TIMES the amount of time it would take to make it and debug it in FireFox (go better JS erroring and DOM inspector!). I know for a fact, that you couldn't.
Has anyone been able to instal Windows XP without SP2 using bootcamp? I have WIN XP without SP2 but I am afraid to try and install it.
Let me know
With MAC OSX, who needs XP or Vista?
""OS X is the most incredible GUI out in the market""
This statement got me thinking...
I'm far from a OSX guru but isn't the GUI that sits on top the only part of the software that is truly Apples? Don't/didn't they use the NEXT microkernel, BSD and Posix? So isn't it the 'look' basically what Apple added to the OS? Just a curious thought and again could be wrong.
Also as far as the comments about Apple switching OS's it wouldn't be the first time they considered it. In the mid-nineties they seriously considered Sun Microsystem's Solaris. My significant other was at Sun and under an NDA during the talks. She did a long comparison of Solaris and I think WinNT which apparently Apple was also considering.
Why did that guy who was going to try Linux use a Ununtu install disc?
He should have just used a Ubuntu Live disc and it would have run entirely from the CD - that would have been an excellent test - and it wouldn't have required any gonads on his part to do.
Apple will not drop their OS, because a 3rd of their business comes from ipods and the itunes music store. Their ilife software is incredible at running these apps, ITUNES,IPHOTO, they are the digital world leaders in this software and hardware, they own 85% of this market share. So they will never not have their OS, they will just continue to make it better, while allowing the XP users to hope on board and use the Apple BOX (Hardware). It just means no more excuses for people not to buy a MAC, there is NO MORE, "Oh I dont understand the mac OS". It means hey you can have a 20" COOL looking iMAC and if you feel you need to use your XP then use it. OS X will always be the best OS on the planet, Wait for LEOPARD!!!
apple is not really targeting M$ market share...but they are trying to steal some computer hardware market from HP and Dell
When people finally realize macs can be so much faster than PCs at the same price, then they will eventually buy macs
Us growing OSX faithful will never run windows.The only outcome is more OSX users !!!!!!!!More competition for M$........and atlast we the consumer will actually dictate " we would like inovation and not have it crushed".I wonder if Balmers armpits are sweating a lil more this year!The IT guy who said IE crap>>>>>do you think he is in chat alot like other mustard stained people?
Has anyone tried to load Windows 2000?
I instaled XP on my iMac and is running better than my family and friends pc xD. well this will be good for Apple I think. poeple my like the apple products but there still scare about living XP. but since they now can have both I think is $$$$ for XP and $$$$$$ for apple. :)
Pointer: OS X will never be dead unless there is some kind of revoulotion etc.
Windows has so many viruses it's a joke, while using my mac for I don't know who long for the web I decided to check IE on my dull little PC and guess what happened A VIRUS!!! Mac = no virus, Windows = you know...
So why in the world would I want windows on my Mac? Everything i ever needed is on the mac, from the odd game (yes UT2004 is there) to MS Office and the occasional Firefox.
I have a windows PC only for LAN Games sure this is a flaw but who cares, leave windows to those tasks best suited to, And OS X to those more adavnce tasks.
Has anyone yet to see benchmarks of Windows XP running on Mac OS X over at ZDNET.UK?
I don't know how Apple designs their software or even tests (if they have a testing program), but if they could design it so that Windows XP running on Apple machines end up in BoSD, then I guess people have no choice but to "try" the alternative - Mac OS X. And coincidentally, Apple isn't so good at producing robust software nor do they even test their hardware/software properly.
-- Response to #13
What on earth is "Internet was designed for IE" - who came up with that idea? There were RFCs, then came the IE and Netscape. Not, there were IE, then came the Internet. Web developers should know a much more about the concepts behind the Web and place where the Web is made available.
--- #94
I guess comments from all levels of computer users are important. Even if they have absolutely no idea. What is being achieved, how it is being achieved, and do they work or not - all matters.
As a bit of a non sequitor, am I able to increase the size of the windows partition after I have installed xp? I booted into OSX and couldn't figure out how to increase the size (I only gave windows 10gig and I filled that within a day). Thanks
I'd imagine they will Sell macs with Bootcamp and Windows but at extra cost. You want Windows that'll be $150 extra (or however much Windows is) OSX will obviously be preinstalled. This will draw attention to how much Windows actually costs, but does give people the option of having the dual-boot preinstalled. Ultimately business will buy Macs instead of Dells. It'd be cool if all new Macs came with OSX preinstalled, a Linux distro thrown in (not sure which one SUSE, RedHat, Ubuntu) and if you wanted Windows that'll be extra.
I totally disagree with everyone here who thinks OS X needs to go away. How many of you have really sat down in front of a Mac and tried it out? How many of you have played with Mac OS X to see what it can do out-of-the-box?
When we got our 2GHz iBook Pro we immediately got it updated and downloaded Boot Camp. We installed Windows XP Pro SP2 and then look at the two side by side. Setting up our (WPA2 Personal secured) wi-fi connection in OS X was easy and it worked on the first try. In XP the OS out-of-the-box didn't support the security protocol for our Linksys wi-fi hotspot so we had to connect to it with a regular PC, change the security settings make it work with our XP install on the iBook, then setup the connection on the XP installed iBook and download the WindowsUpdate containing support for WPA2! After that it still didn't work on the first try!
In Mac OS X we tried to access network shares on a XP Pro machine over the network. Following the on-screen prompts we got it working on the first try. In XP it didn't work on the first try, and after rebooting the network connection stopped working and My Network Places lost all of the settings we just spend a hour setting up. It took another hour setting things back and up and trying over and over again to get the two XP systems talking.
Running Mac OS X we connected a monitor to the laptop along with a USB mouse and keyboard. It worked immediately and we were able to change the display resolution and refresh rate with ease. In XP the USB devices did work on the first try, but changing the display resolution and refresh rates was as frustrating task given how poor ATI's Windows Drivers are. After about half-an-hour we finally got it to work.
Our overall experience with a Intel-based Apple iBook Pro has been this:
Mac OS X is lightyears head of Window in usability. Its Microsoft's propaganda that has 3/4 of the work thinking you can't do anything worthwhile on a Mac or that Mac OS X isn't as good as Windows XP. Boot Camp will make those people who are curious about Macs actually give the systems a try and on their own they'll discover just how much better Mac OS X really is over XP.
Dude!!!!!!!!!!!!! ox-s isn't all that graet nether is windows linux rocks i have wine it helps but it does'nt work maost of the time. 10 years from now linux.
---
I use ubuntu
Windows XP on a Mac is like having a Mercedes with a lada-engine...
I bought an windows pc 4 month ago, then I bought the mactel. Now I will sell the windows pc to buy another mactel with bootcamp. I need to run Visual Studio.NET . This, I can't run on Mac Os X...