Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bunk Camp - Apple Gets It Wrong?

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the see-it's-a-clever-twist-of-one-letter dept.

731

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.'"

cancel ×

731 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

apple is a joke (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15105045)

I started (or attempted to start) using Linux a few years back when I started university, just out of plain curiosity. My buddy and I downloaded the ISO images of Red Hat Linux 8.0, and from that point forward, it all went to shit.

I figured it would be no problem, I used Sun's Solaris quite a bit so I understood the shell at least. Install went well, even though I was confused why I needed seven million partitions which I had to allocate manually and to have a root password since it was a single user machine. After my install, I restarted my machine, saw a bunch of ugly crap being spewed to the screen, and before you knew it, X Windows loaded up and I was in Linux. "Ooh, this looks neat, just like Windows. Let's see if I can surf the web!"

This is the point where I discovered the 'magic' of Linux. It couldn't find a driver for a simple ethernet card. So I got onto another computer running Windows, and found some type of driver for it. All right, I'll just burn it to a cd, pop it onto the Linux machine, and we're good to go. I started looking around for the CD ROM icon...where was it? Apparently I had to mount it manually, luckily I know UNIX. Then it asks me for root password. Okay, so I enter it. Then I can see the CD ROM, great. Oh look, the driver is in the form of source code, I have to compile it. So I tried to compile it with the configure script that came along. Oh wait, I need some !@#$ing stupid C library. All right, so I download that as well in the form of a RPM, which luckily worked, and then I was able to compile the driver.

Okay now what? According to the instructions, I had to recompile the kernel making the driver a part of it. 'Recompile the kernel?' I thought, 'What kind of sick operating system makes you recompile its kernel...' Apparently I didn't know what kind of twisted people designed Linux. Oh wait, it wants the stupid root password again...good God. So after about 5 hours, I had Internet...given that I knew how to use a UNIX machine. Four days later I tried installing something else, it asked me for the same stupid C library but version 1.2.3.4.5 instead of the version I had...God forbid...1.2.3.4.4 (oh what a fool I was for not updating every 10 minutes!) Within an hour, my drive was formatted (twice out of spite) and running Windows XP.

A few months back I was inspired again to run Linux. If you read the tech news, there's no doubt about it, it's taking over the server market. A Linux sys admin will make 20 grand more than a Windows sys admin (Makes you wonder if 20 grand is worth eventual suicide), so I felt I should pick it up. Of course now I was more prepared, I've read books, admin guides, worked as a student UNIX operator, 3 years under my belt as a computer science student, two internships, and had studied the Linux kernel in depth.

I decided I would try a whole bunch of distributions, I tried Red Hat 9, Fedora Core 2, SuSe 9.1, Debian, and Mandrake 10. All special in there own little way...like retarded children. As soon as SuSe loaded up, I was like..."nice nice, very sleek...", then a hissing came out my left speaker that wouldn't go away. Nice autodetection for the sound driver. Bye bye SuSe. All right, let's try Red Hat 9...oh look Red Hat won't give any more automatic updates because now that it has a little bit of money...!@#$ open source, let's become the next Microsoft! Oh Debian and Mandrake, just plain ugly and slow.

What about Fedora Core, Red Hat's latest method of getting code for free rather than having to pay programmers in India $0.85 an hour to do it. Why pay someone when you can have some idiot from GNU or some grad student do it for free, then sell it for 400 bucks a pop. It was surprising though that that experimental piece of crap worked better than all the other distributions, even though its autoupdate some how corrupted my kernel and I had to overwrite it.

But what I find most stupid is the philosophy behind it. Why make something so complex for free? I'm an excellent software engineer, good software is hard to make, it's beyond art, takes incredible amounts of education, hardwork and talent, and it should be kept proprietary and one should be paid to make it. I shouldn't have to run around asking for donations and shouldn't have to live in my mom's basement to get by.

Go to the GNU assholes' site, their feeling is that it should be my 'moral obligation' to code for free and give that code away as well. Those guys don't care about the rest of us, they have jobs, they're being paid by the government to design their half ass compilers and shitty OS. Some of us aren't shady recluses with no other goals in life other than to understand every little thing about computers. After our 8-5 day, we want to live our lives...and giving away software for free is not helping anybody except big corporations who save even more money.

Virtualization is coming... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15105046)

In the next major release. Didn't you read the speculation?

FP? (4, Insightful)

Chode2235 (866375) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105050)

I just got the iMac because of bootcamp. Now I will be able to play games (battlefield 2) and run some weird applications that I use. I think the author is missing the point, it is all about weaning users off of windows, not giving them another platform to run windows. I don't boot into windows unless I have to. Hopefullly I have to boot into windows less and less as time goes on.

Re:FP? (5, Insightful)

ReluctantRefactorer (223101) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105125)

It seems to me that if you play PC games a lot, you'll be booting into Windows more and more as time goes on, since what incentive is there to port PC games to OS X if you can run the PC version so easily on the Mac via BootCamp?

If BootCamp takes off, I predict the already small Mac-native games market will wither even further.

Re:FP? (2, Insightful)

fistfullast33l (819270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105255)

what incentive is there to port PC games to OS X if you can run the PC version so easily on the Mac via BootCamp?

This is definitely a slippery slope, but I think Apple still has the upper hand. They have shown in the past that they definitely are not willing to compromise just to make their users happy in the short run. They also are willing to drop support of a product just to get users to move to a newer version. Microsoft is just starting to learn this trick, but no one does it better than Apple. This is why there are still more PC's with Windows 98 installed than XP and very few Macs with OS9 installed than OSX. I think they'll wait a few months/years to get their sales up, and then cut out the rug and say, we don't support Windows any longer on our hardware. It's a very risky play but I wouldn't put it past Apple to do this.

Re:FP? (4, Insightful)

samkass (174571) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105281)

Here's [icculus.org] the best analysis I've seen of it so far, written by Ryan Gordon, who's done a zillion Mac and Linux ports of games.

I personally don't think Boot Camp changes the economic equation at all yet. When it comes out of beta and if users are willing to buy a $150 "software dongle for games" (WinXP), then maybe Mac ports will start declining in revenue. On the other hand, if Apple can double or triple their market share by taking away the fear of switching, maybe we'll see more.

Re:FP? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15105129)

Hopefullly I have to boot into windows less and less as time goes on.

But what's the mechanism by which that happens? Instead of demanding games that run on Mac and effectively being part of an untapped market, you've conceded that people who really want to play games will get dual boot and run them under Windows. That's hardly a strategy aimed at bringing more games ton the Mac.

A more reasonable expectation is that as time goes on you'll have to boot into Windows more and more, because its share of the market is boosted even further by dual booters. I doubt this is only true of games either.

Re:FP? (5, Insightful)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105182)

Agreed... with boot camp out now I'm considering getting a Mac as my next machine.

I also dis-agree that this would make the mac game library smaller. Sure for a while you'll have Mac users booting into Windows for games and windows users running their OS on Mac hardware. But the reason we don't see games on Mac is because the OS's user base is so much smaller then windows. The only thing it would take to get more games onto OSX is more users... and stuff like this can only help to increase the user base. If the market has a choice of OSs and they lean towards OSX software when they have a choice of getting it for either. Games will follow because they just go to the lowest common denominator. Heck just look at the console market, PS2 gets EVERYTHING simply because it has the biggest userbase, it's certainly not the best in any other category.

Re:FP? (1, Insightful)

dslauson (914147) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105224)

As long as you're buying their hardware, Apple doesn't care what OS you're running.

Re:FP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15105249)

You are making the assumption that Windows is bad. This is not the case.
 
A couple years back, even I was using the iMac. Sure, it worked nicely and all, but it didn't have the versatility that a Windows PC has. Windows is *the* ad-hoc standard as everyone uses it. That's why I think we should keep using it is because everyone else uses it, the standard. Furthermore, MS products are great. Just take a look at them, Windows, Excel, Office, Word, and PowerPoint. That's a lot of products. A lot of good products. Microsoft grew because it is an excellent company and knows how to horse around the economy. We would be nowhere without Gates, Ballmer, and Developers, developers, developers! of Microsoft-utilizing products.
 
Back when I had an Apple ][e, I wanted to run Windows on it. But I couldn't. All that I could do was play games like Easy Street and mess around with a little bit of office apps. Back in those days, we had things like VisiCalc. Apple was nothing compared to Microsoft and still isn't that great. I don't see how you would want to dual boot. What would be interesting would be to layer the master boot record (512 bytes, that's a lot) and make it where you could boot Windows AND FreeBSD aka OSX, get this... -=at the same time=-. In conclusion, you should look into the mirror and suck my dong.

Good day, sir!

A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105051)

The reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X to PC users (aside from the obvious ties with their more lucrative hardware business) is that OS X simply wouldn't be as stable or bulletproof in the PC world as it has been in the Mac world.

The big secret is that OS X's stability is based largely on the fact that Apple makes all the decisions on hardware configurations and certification for themselves. In the PC world, XP must be built for an infinite number of possible combinations of hardware components--and hence much of its problems with stability, reliability, etc. For Apple to duplicate this would be very difficult, expensive, and would likely produce results no better (and probably even worse) than XP.

If OS X users want to see the "blue screen of death," just *try* and use an OS that has to be built for an infinite combination of hardware setups, as opposed to a OS built by the same company that makes the hardware.

-Eric

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15105074)

Judging by the successes of the osx86 project and how stable osx runs when hacked to run on any hardware, I would say this is not the case.

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (1)

BVis (267028) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105100)

It's my understading, however, that there are far fewer drivers available for commodity x86 hardware, making the prospect of running OSX on a beige box PC kind of useless.

Has this changed?

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15105092)

An even more fundamental reason Apple won't sell OS X to PC users is that PC-type people, unfortunately, just wouldn't understand OS X. You see, the Mac, and in fact the entire Apple experience, is intuitive for a certain kind of person. Artists, fashion mavens, scientists, and other creative personalities [atspace.com] can sit down with a MacBook Pro running the latest dot-update of Tiger and comprehend its sensitive, tasteful aesthetic [atspace.com] . It's a rare instinct, this appreciation for beauty and truth [atspace.com] ; unimaginative, dogma-bound drones haven't a prayer.

In summary, unattractive squares should stick to Linux [atspace.com] and Windows [atspace.com] .
Macs are for different thinkers. [atspace.com]

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (-1, Flamebait)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105210)

I would reply, but I can't see through all that smug.

-Eric

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15105222)

Different thinkers [atspace.com] .. definitely ;P


(note: I've got nothing against Apple)

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (1)

PhreakOfTime (588141) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105103)

I couldnt have said it better myself. Cheers.

But thats mostly because its still too damn early in the morning...

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (1, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105116)

Poppycock.

Linux runs on tons more platforms and configurations than Windows does, and it has never had a problem with stability as far as I'm aware. The biggest problem with Linux is drivers, but you can't blame the developers, blame the manufacturers who won't release the specs. The number of platforms and configurations that you support does not directly affect your stability. Apple is stable because it cares about stability. MS isn't stable, because they don't care about stability

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105195)

MS isn't stable, because they don't care about stability

You can't seriously believe that.

-Eric

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (1, Insightful)

goldspider (445116) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105221)

"You can't seriously believe that."

You can if you're a blinded zealot.

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105250)

Well, that isn't to say they don't care anymore. Windows 2000/XP is way more stable than their previous offerings. 3.1, 95, 98, were all pretty unstable. ME was terrible. I think they are starting to see the light. Before Win2k, windows was a big joke, and nobody claimed that it was stable at all, if people didn't have to use it, they wouldn't have. Now things are getting better, because I think that MS realized that had things continued to run the way win98 did, that they might have actually lost their monopoly. People won't put up with that forever.

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (-1)

blakestah (91866) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105277)

MS isn't stable, because they don't care about stability

You can't seriously believe that.

Linux and Mac are both dramatically more stable than Windows. A common user sees at least an order of magnitude difference in the frequency of lockups. At linux the priorities are set by the programmers themselves. Any lockup that can be easily replicated by the developers is debugged rapidly and fixed. Mac is not quite so good, but they don't support nearly as much hardware, and they use an underlying architecture that is comparable to that of linux - relatively hard to crash.

For Windows, it comes down to a question of priorities. Microsoft solves its problems ONLY when they see those problems threatening their business. Despite the fact that Windows crashes regularly, people keep buying it. When people stop buying it BECAUSE it is unstable, Microsoft will spend more on marketing to convince people it is not unstable. When that doesn't work, Microsoft will, fairly rapidly, fix the problem. Any company that can bank over a billion dollars a month has enough money to make Windows stable. But, making Windows stable doesn't make them more money, it is a net loss. Once Windows' stability threatens profit margins, Windows will get fixed.

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (2, Interesting)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105236)

Linux runs on tons more platforms and configurations than Windows does, and it has never had a problem with stability as far as I'm aware.

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.

Windows suffers mostly from drivers too. (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105267)

Linux isn't alone in this problem, my only stability problems are because of third party drivers.

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (3, Insightful)

The Warlock (701535) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105122)

I love how we always hear "the big secret is Apple has full control of the hardware" even though this "big secret" is "revealed" (usually more than once) every goddamn time an OSX article gets posted.

(sidenote: my FreeBSD install is pretty fucking stable on commodity PC hardware, why wouldn't OSX be?)

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (1, Insightful)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105124)

If OS X users want to see the "blue screen of death," just *try* and use an OS that has to be built for an infinite combination of hardware setups, as opposed to a OS built by the same company that makes the hardware.

Linux users don't seem to have this problem.

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (1)

Iloinen Lohikrme (880747) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105209)

Then again average Linux user is a bit different from average Windows user. Where as average Linux usually has some clue what the system is doing, what it should be doing, and how to make it doing what you want, where as average Windows user knows how to start PC and knows, or has clue, on how to start Internet browser or Word.

I would argue that the only reason that I don't have problems with my machine, commodity PC with Fedora 4, is that when problem arrises, I work with it until it's solved, if I wouldn't do so, my computer wouldn't be usable.

On a site node, on my machine Linux works much better than Windows with certified drivers: something to do with using SB128PCI which uses some non-standard ways to use PCI-bus, and some other problem with NVidia card and motherboard which don't play together in Windows, no 3D-gaming with it, only in Lixux under Cedega...

But yeah, I'm little of the track, but my argument is that Linux users aren't so clueless than Windows users which explains quite much why Linux systems work where as Windows systems tend to wank.

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15105237)

They just don't use their hardware.

It's easy not to crash because of your Super-Fanta-Uber VGA capable of 20480x15360 on 16 monitor at 64bit depth 200Hz refresh, if you use it always at 320x200x2 CGA resolution..

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105247)

Well Linus is a different beast. Linux doesn't have to have the simplicity or ease of use that Windows and OS X have to have, no does it support anywhere near the number of drivers as a Windows machine (or make is nearly as easy to install those drivers/new devices/etc.).

MS and Apple don't have the option of telling their users things like "Okay, now you need to recompile your kernel now."

-Eric

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15105145)

Right, I'm sure it has nothing to do with Steve being a control freak.

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (1)

mshmgi (710435) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105176)

But then how do you explain the stability of Linux?

just for clarification (1)

TheAxeMaster (762000) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105189)

A "MAC" is a PC. So they DO sell OS X to PC users, they just also happen to make the only PCs they run on. I would have expected Slashdot to get the naming right, but I guess that was too much to hope for.
 
That aside, what you've described is also why Windows has such a huge user base. You can plug in just about any piece of hardware you've got, dig up a driver for it and it works relatively well. Cost/performance ratios are important to a lot of people, they want a lot of bang for their buck. That's why they buy $500 windows machines from dell instead of apple's considerably pricier solutions.

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (1)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105196)

That's almost right: an important factor is that they put good quality components in the Macs not just any old cheap crud that the wholeseller was selling cheap today (which is what must PC makers do).

Tell'em what is is going to cost.......... (0, Flamebait)

Anarchist Ed (962604) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105240)

not to mention that i can buy 5 PC's for the price of a Mac.....that to me is the most important feature....the PRICE

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X (1)

ockegheim (808089) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105278)

Yes, the only time OS X has frozen on me was when my dodgy external hard drive wouldn't wake up.

Anecdotal evidence (4, Interesting)

multiOSfreak (551711) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105052)

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.

Re:Anecdotal evidence (3, Interesting)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105077)

Ditto. My mom was going to buy a PC because of a single Windows app she needed to run. She was considering getting a Mac and running VirtualPC, but I knew it would be slow so I was uncertain whether it would really be a good idea. However, thanks to Boot Camp, she is definitely now going to buy a Mac.

Re:Anecdotal evidence (2, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105193)

Same here. The Mac mini is what a lot of people are looking for. A small, silent computer, that doesn't get in the way. I've been thinking of buying one too. I'm kind of tired of my computer being loud, and in the way, I don't have that much living space, and my current tower doesn't really have that much that a Mac Mini doesn't. I'd probably be perfect happy with a Mac Mini, and maybe 1 or 2 external drives

Re:Anecdotal evidence (1)

muhgcee (188154) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105259)

I don't see how any self-respecting geek could be satisfied with a Mac mini as their main or only machine. I personally want one as a side "toy". But really, I can't be satisfied with something that has less than 2 optical drives, a screaming video card, a few hard drives, tons of RAM, etc etc.

Now maybe if you did a Mac Mini as your main computer with a beefy server in the closet, or 2 or 3 mid-range servers in the closet...then we might be talking.

As long as you don't want to play games, that is.

"Camp" (1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105054)

I think it's really inapropriate to use such a name. Millions of poor bastards died in Camps, from Shatilah to Guantanamo.
It's time to end the madness. "Camp" is not decent enough a word to be used.

Virtualization is probably in Apple's pipeline (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15105055)

Someone on here had posted a link to a company that was working on such a product and it wouldn't suprise me if Apple does the same thing just in time for Vista's launch.

Nothing to see here, folks, please move along... (5, Insightful)

Jim in Buffalo (939861) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105060)

That article was written by someone who hasn't been using a Mac lately. Phrases like "I doubt it" and "my Windows machine" are a dead giveaway. Let's hear from someone who knows what he's talking about.

Re:Nothing to see here, folks, please move along.. (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105088)

The Windows users are the ones who'd have to be converted by this move. I don't think the vast majority of the Mac users gives a damn about this or they would have bought a PC in first place.

Re:Nothing to see here, folks, please move along.. (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105225)

Why would you have to use a Mac to speculate on what Windows users are likely to do?

I think the article is a load of nonsense too, but that's because it's based around the premise that Apple want people to switch to OS X. They don't. They want people to buy their hardware. Catering to Windows users without pressuring them to switch helps them achieve that goal.

Well, obviously. (2, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105061)

Sounds right to me. I wouldn't buy a new system that'd end up forcing me to reboot if I want to access the other half of my applications (and the way it is now I wouldn't boot into OSX in first place). Hell, if I wanted dualbooting there's enough Linux distros for every taste and those don't require completely new hardware to run on. Until I can run all of the applications I use on the same OS I'm not switching.

Re:Well, obviously. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15105177)

"if I wanted dualbooting there's enough Linux distros for every taste"

My taste includes "having a GUI that's not buttfucking ugly" and "there's no way in hell I'll spend months learning about my OS in order to use it" and I think I'm out of luck :/

Re:Well, obviously. (2, Insightful)

Antimatter3009 (886953) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105200)

Well then you're not who they're targeting. If you see yourself buying a Mac and then running half of your applications in Windows, then yes, Boot Camp is useless. But a lot of people find OSX to be attractive and would love to use it primarily, but cannot be without a few critical apps that they use every so often (games are the most obvious). Those are the people that Boot Camp was created for, because now they can make the switch and not lose anything.

Re:Well, obviously. (1)

Trejkaz (615352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105217)

Until I can run all of the applications I use on the same OS I'm not switching.

See you in the year 3003, when software developers may finally have a clue how to write portable code.

Bunk (5, Insightful)

pdc (19855) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105062)

Apple don't need to get people to switch to Mac OS X; they need to get them to buy Apple's computers.

Supporting Windows makes it easier for people to decide to try a Mac, because they don't have to worry about losing familiar applications like regedt32 and minesweeper. Apple hopes that they will then discover that they don't need Windows after all.

See http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog00000000 52.html [joelonsoftware.com] for a discussion

Re:Bunk (4, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105079)

Apple hopes that they will then discover that they don't need Windows after all.

And even if they don't decide that, they've still bought a Mac...

Re:Bunk (3, Insightful)

waif69 (322360) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105119)

Apple is first and foremost a hardware company, they just happen to have a well designed stable OS. Design is something that Apple is known for and they do know how to make good looking machines for their time. No big PC manufacturer does that as well. Boot Camp is for getting people to buy a mac and then find out that if they use OS X more than XP, they will have greater stability without having to give up their precious games or legacy apps that won't run on or be ported to OS X or flavor of *nix.

Re:Bunk (1)

rwven (663186) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105136)

The problem with that thought is that if you think about the windows XP user who wants to try linux they will dual boot it. in 99.9% of cases that user will rarely if ever use linux again after the first try. i know of only two people IRL that have ever tried linux while running windows side by side and decided to go to linux full-time.

People who are familiar with windows and buy a mac to dual boot will stick with what they know in almost every case. you'll get those .1% of users who switch, but i'd guarantee for the clueless user who bought a mac because it was pretty, they'd rather use the OS that all their friends and the computer lab at college are using.

The only people who buy Macs for the OS are the zealots and those who need it for some work reason. Every other user just likes the fact that the hardware is pretty.

On another note, i do think that OSX would quickly become a laughing stock if it was ever converted to run on an ibm-compatible. I think the blue screen of death jokes would soon be replaced by other apple-crash screen jokes and such.

Re:Bunk (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105248)

Apple don't need to get people to switch to Mac OS X; they need to get them to buy Apple's computers.

Or do they? Given the success of the iPod and all its brethren, there's a steady stream of income to support the computer lines while the whole OS X/XP thing gets sorted out. Frankly, the ability to dual boot XP or OS X is not going to matter to the regular consumer, only to the Mac fanatic or the Windows user with Mac curiosity. While dual boot capacity might help make some converts, it's not going to create a groundswell of change over to Macs.

Re:Bunk (1)

generic-man (33649) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105257)

Apple won't sell you a copy of Windows XP, so a Mac mini now costs $800 at minimum ($600 for base configuration plus $200 for a Windows XP Home full-install disc).

Apple won't support Windows XP even to the level Dell will, so any problems put you on web forums at the mercy of both Apple zealots laughing at you and Windows zealots* mocking your Apple purchase.

I get the idea that Boot Camp isn't actually for the casual user, unless the casual user has a very computer-knowledgeable friend to assist with any problems.

* They exist

It will however... (4, Insightful)

TERdON (862570) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105070)

convince some users that use (or want to use) both (because they're forced to because of software availability etc) to get rid of their PCs. Not having to buy two computers means they can spend more money on the Apple hardware.

Also, it will be a safe retreat for some one buying a Mac only to find out they didn't like it. Even though you're not totally convinced that you'll like OS X, you always have the possibility to install Windows XP on it instead.

Re:It will however... (1)

Trejkaz (615352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105233)

Of course, a much better kind of insurance for not liking OSX would be the ability to try it on normal hardware before you have to shell a couple thousand for a new machine.

It's Not The Applications That Matter (2, Insightful)

mudbogger (668451) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105076)

FTA:Does OS X really offer any applications that would entice me to purchase a new Mac and put up with the tedium of Boot Camp? I doubt it.

It's not necessarily the applications that will persuade people. He should look at the ipod -- is that the only mp3 player out there or anywhere close to the cheapest? People want Apple's because of the trend and the way the hardware looks.

Re:It's Not The Applications That Matter (1)

Chode2235 (866375) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105134)

iLife ...

Re:It's Not The Applications That Matter (4, Interesting)

EvilSS (557649) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105167)

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.

who cares if apple sells more copies of osx? (2, Informative)

foQ (551575) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105091)

Last time I heard, Steve Jobs said something like "We are, and always will be, a hardware company." Now I'm not saying that Boot Camp will sell more hardware, but I don't think anybody expects Boot Camp to help sell more copies of OS X. Can you even buy an Intel Mac without OS X? I doubt it.

Re:who cares if apple sells more copies of osx? (1)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105153)

That wasn't Jobs that said that. That line has been passed around for so long, people have forgetten that it was one (Gill Amerio? or was it that ex-pepsi-guy?) of the interim apple presidents during the period when jobs was kicked out of the company. Jobs DID say that the Mac was an "appliance".

For people who think that a mac with bootcamp isn't for them: It's not for you.

It's for people like me.

Editorialism hits a new low... (1)

xusr (947781) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105095)

it is clearly a clever twist of three letters...

Everybody has an opinion (4, Insightful)

AugstWest (79042) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105096)

But does Slashdot have to post them all?

Really, we haven't thought of this here on /.

We haven't had dozens of threads debating this very topic already.

Can we please beat this dead horse a little more?

Re:Everybody has an opinion (2, Interesting)

downrightamazed (643410) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105258)

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.

Not applies for me, I think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15105113)

I've been thinking about getting a mac and dual-booting it for my next computer. The speed that everyone's mentioning makes it sound very interesting, and OSX is damn stable (though Windows is catching up in this department).

It's not about OS X (5, Insightful)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105115)

Apple isn't in the OS X business, they are in the computer hardware business. If somebody buys an Apple instead of a Dell so they can run an occasional Mac application, Boot Camp is a success.

Of course, many people want to see Windows market share decrease, but that's their agenda, not Apple's.

Re:It's not about OS X (1)

DiscoNick (743960) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105170)

Hits the nail on the head. And with BootCamp, Windows users who bought a Mac have the freedom to delve into OS X for a little each day, while still having the security to boot back into Windows, their known platform.

Re:It's not about OS X (1)

Trejkaz (615352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105283)

Apple isn't in the OS X business, they are in the computer hardware business.

If that were true, imagine how much cheaper the upgrade to Tiger would have been ($0.)

Missing the point (4, Insightful)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105121)

I think he misses the fact that some people want to move to OS X but are held back by one must-have application. Boot camp is perfect for these people. My mom, for example, really wants to switch to apple after I let her use my ibook, but she has one program that she needs to occasionally use for work that holds her back. Now she can switch, no problems.

-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

Re:Missing the point (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105252)

My mom, for example, really wants to switch to apple after I let her use my ibook, but she has one program that she needs to occasionally use for work that holds her back.

Nothing like the magic of software; now you can do the equivalent of buying that cute VW Bug (or Mini if your prefer) and still haul around the girl's soccer team (or sheets of plywood).

Re:Missing the point (1)

Trejkaz (615352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105264)

A lot of people are not even held back by applications, but by the company not letting them buy a laptop which can't conceivably be used to do their job (which the company naturally assumes can only be done on Windows.) Whether such a person even ends up booting into Windows is irrelevant once the hardware is acquired (I know in my case, I haven't yet. Though I have been eyeing off Bootcamp as a convenient way to dual boot into Linux.)

Re:Missing the point (1)

theJML (911853) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105288)

Ok, I don't pretend to be an Apple guru, but I have this scenario at home. There are a number of apps I want to run from windows that don't run on linux. I use linux 90% of the time and don't want to dual boot to get the other apps. Guess What, I run Wine. Everything from windows I want to run, runs in Wine with almost no issues what-so-ever. Isn't there something like this for OS-X? Can Wine be ported to OS-X? If so, that's the solution that a lot of people are looking for. A way to natively run a Windows App in OS-X.

I, for one, welcome Boot Camp for XP (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105128)

How else am I going to load MSPaint on my new MAC?

But seriously, its a start to a having a computer that can and will run anything - so it is a good thing.

Poor source (1)

lp-habu (734825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105130)

Whenever I see a writer say about selling OSX for non-Mac hardware, "I don't see any valid reason why Apple isn't doing this, as it would dramatically increase its revenue and market penetration," I immediately have grave doubts about his perspicacity. It makes anything else he has to say less interesting.

That said, I would agree that virtualization -- either from Apple or a third party, perhaps even VirtualPC from Microsoft -- will be a far more useful thing. But it's coming, so why the big deal?

My OS X Experience (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15105139)

So, I wanted to install Quake 4. I use Linux a lot. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty comfortable with it. I've heard OS X was great for people who want to play games with no hassles. I knew apple made it, so I pointed konqeror at apple.org, and away I went. Ooops. Apple is a company, not an organisation. Apple.com! Okay, so I tried to search the website for an .iso, so I could install OS X. Nothing! I realised that it was Commercial Software. I should have known this upfront, but I'm no MAC expert. So, for the privelige of *playing games,* I went down to a local computer shop and invested over a hundred dollars in a copy of OS X. (I guess there are a lot of hard core gamers who wouldn't have a problem with putting down hundreds of dollars just to play games, but it isn't something I normally do.)

Installation was pretty smooth. I had to download nvidia binary drivers to get fully accelerated OpenGL, just like Linux. OS X is a supported platform for the drivers. I had to reboot the whole OS after installing them, because OS X won't let you easily drop back to a command line mode and just restart the GUI. No worries - I didn't have a server running on the machine, and it only takes a bit longer to reboot than to just restart a GUI.

Caution - OS X only comes with a special limited feature browser that doesn't support tabs, or anything. It is apparently only provided so you can download the latest version of a real browser after you install OS X. OS X doesn't come with a lot of useful stuff that you expect from a Linux distro...

So, I start reading docs to find out how you install apps on this new OS. I was having a pretty good time. Then, I learned that there is no equivalent of apt-get. If there is free software you want to download and install, you have to do it manually. So, I used the funny miniature "Safari" browser to get the Quake 4 source online.

Ooops, bad idea. OS X doesn't come with a compiler. You can download a free version, but the full featured "Visual Studio," costs a lot of money. I didn't feel like investing the effort to understand the differences. I decided to just get binaries. Again, there is no tool to automatically download and install an app, so I had to manually google for MAC binaries. Thankfully, Quake 4 is a very popular game, so it was very fast and easy to find, but still, it is an extra layer of inconvenience.

After a flurry of clicking "next" and eventually "finish," I finally had the game installed. Hooray. I tried to run it and I got a "Problem Report for Mac OS X" (Crash error screen) Of course, I already pointed out that OS X comes with no development tools, so it wasn't like I could try again with the debugger to see what happened. I had no way to see exactly what the issue was. What's worse, I couldn't get back to the system. This *game* had caused the equivalent of a kernel panic. It wasn't just the app that had crashed, but the whole system! this, from a system that is supposedly really great for games! It lets a game kill it!

Okay, so I rebooted into Linux. I already knew of a website with binaries for Quake 4, so I went there in Konq (Which came installed by default! I didn't have to go and download it!), downloaded a package, and that was all there was to it. This "OS X is great for games" garbage is just horrible propaganda.

Warning: FUD troll (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105203)

I'm no expert

Expert?! You're barely multi-celled!

Man, I miss Duckman.

No hardware lockin (2, Insightful)

jridley (9305) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105146)

I was just arguing with a friend who happens to be an Apple employee about this. I was toying with the idea of building an OS X x86 compatible PC using the HCL on sourceforge. He said that by doing this I was stealing from his livelihood.

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 don't want to buy hardware. I have hardware. I want my hardware to be fungible and able to run any OS I care to put on it this week. I want to be able to choose what I want from the vast variety of what's available, and not have to choose from just what Apple thinks will satisfy me. I'm not going to buy hardware that's priced above market for no reason that I care about (I don't care how pretty it looks, and I don't care about some (mythical, as far as I can tell) higher level of reliability. I just want to run the software and OS that I decide to run.

It's sometimes said that PC users buy machines to run applications; Apple users buy machines to run the OS. I think that Apple is afraid to put the OS on the market standalone, because in lieu of hardware sales income, they would be charging more than MS charges for Windows, and they'd draw comparisons.

That seems fine to me. It is a better OS, so it's OK for it to cost more.

Apple has to some extent maintained the "ease of use" paradigm in the same way that GUIs are easy to use; they restrict choice. If you give people less choice, they are less confused. If they want to enter the larger market, they need to figure out how to continue to deliver their historic strengths while moving into a position of giving the users the wider variety of choices that they are used to in other OSs.

Re:No hardware lockin (1, Informative)

Luscious868 (679143) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105216)

Repeat after me: Apple is a hardware company. Douchebag ...

Re:No hardware lockin (1)

jridley (9305) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105275)

Apple is a hardware company selling hardware I don't want.

They also happen to have an excellent piece of software that I do want. But they won't sell it to me.

How long (0)

boyfaceddog (788041) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105147)

How long will it be before someone creates THE killer app for mac that runs windows in OS X ala the "classic" mode? And yes, by "killer" I do mean that it will kill the Mac.

Re:How long (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105190)

How long will it be before someone creates THE killer app for mac that runs windows in OS X ala the "classic" mode? And yes, by "killer" I do mean that it will kill the Mac.

Like VirtualPC? It's been available for a long time and it sucks ass. It is dog slow on my dual 2GHz G5 Powermac. I gave up and setup a VMWare Server virtual machine on a PC and RDP into it instead, it's 20 times faster.

Re:How long (4, Informative)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105207)

It's already happened. Parallels [parallels.com] has a beta out right now.

It's doesn't seem like it's about switching to OSX (1)

scourfish (573542) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105155)

People were trying to get XP to run on their new Macs. There was even a monetary prize for doing so. Apple probably just saw that, and rather than try to hinder or cripple people's ability do to so, which would make them look bad, released their own bootloader and put a "Oh using windows will make them switch to OSX" spin on it for a few PR points.

Here's few things the article misses. (1)

JollyFinn (267972) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105157)

Article advocates apple selling OS to standard PC:s

Inorder to sell operating system they would need to price it competively, and make it work with wider variety of PC:s instead of limited number of different systems.

Here's probably how it would look in reality, people who would normally buy apple because of OSX would more often buy OSX and get their PC from some cheaper location. The profit margins for apple computers are good. Then apple would need to multiply its market share in operating systems, in order to get equivalent profits. And I doubt that apple could actually would gain 4x the market share for their OS than what they have with their computers.

Remember supportin more hardware costs them in support and developement.

Bunk Camp? This guy got off at the wrong exit... (5, Insightful)

Shimatta1 (257977) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105162)

The major premise of the article is rather flawed; Boot Camp wasn't about "luring" in Windows users. Most of those users don't have a choice (e.g. work restrictions) or don't realize that an OS doesn't have to be unstable and/or vulnerable; they think that it's "just the way it is".

What Boot Camp does is remove the barrier to adoption. There are a number of Windows users who would like to switch, but need access to Software X or don't want to give up Game Y, and don't want to maintain two separate computers for those tasks. Now, they don't have to. Sure, rebooting is a pain, but for someone who wants to, say, use their MacBook Pro as a windows machine at work, and as a mac at home, well, they can do that easily enough.

Sure, Virtualization would be better, and I've heard (rumors, rumors, mind you) that it's coming. But Boot Camp, by removing the barrier to switching, is a very good transition state, and an acceptable end state, if Apple chose to leave it at that.

The blue Shimatta1 needs food, badly.

It's a beta (0)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105169)

The author nas NO idea what the final form will be like in 10.5.

Anything else is pointless nattering. Welcome to the interwebs.

It's all about the laptops (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105172)

The author of the article makes the point that he could just keep his Windows PC. This is true, of course. He could just not bother getting a Mac at all, and this sounds like it's his plan.

Assume, for a moment, that you are interested in a Mac. Since most Macs sold at the moment are laptops, it's fair to assume that you are interested in a MacBook. Now, they are still fairly expensive and so it would be a shame to get one and then discover that OS X isn't all you thought it would be. The ability to run XP is a nice fall-back for these people.

Even if they do like OS X, there may be the odd windows app that they need sometimes. This didn't happen to me, since I switched to (cross platform) F/OSS apps for pretty much everything before jumping on the Mac bandwagon, but it may for others. Sure, they could carry a second laptop around with them to use 5-10% of the time, but I'm sure rebooting would be much easier. True virtualization would be nicer, but this would have some significant disadvantages. If you could run any Windows app on OS X with only a very minor inconvenience then I imagine that a lot of developers would not bother with OS X ports.

wrong.com.com.com (5, Insightful)

clevershark (130296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105175)

Let's remember some of the other things that CNET (the .com.com.com people) thought were "sure things" back in the day -- portals, push (think Pointcast), the Thin Client, etc. For people who only cover tech they're remarkably clueless of the world outside of wintel (and, more often than not, inside of it as well).

Average Joe Not Switching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15105181)

Dells are just too cheap to pass up, no matter what the Macheads on this site say. Personally, I find dual booting completely useless and see Apple's bootcamp as a way to throw the "Microsoft hating Apple fanboys who are dying to use Windows" crowd a bone.

Enough about bootcamp! (0)

sco08y (615665) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105184)

Apple usually gets disproportionate coverage, but this is insane.

And I'm not getting a new Mac for at least two years, so I don't want to hear about the Intel Macs already.

Just a suggestion (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105226)

And I'm not getting a new Mac for at least two years, so I don't want to hear about the Intel Macs already.

Well... then maybe you want to go to a site called, like, "Sco08y's Newz" or something. Or maybe not read articles about the Intel Macs. You know... something proactive.

Hwo do these idiots get jobs??? (1)

theolein (316044) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105212)

FTFA: If Apple wants a significant number of users to sample OS X, Boot Camp just won't cut it. Instead, it's going to have to get off the fence and start selling OS X to PC users, rather than restricting it to the Mac. I don't see any valid reason why Apple isn't doing this

I mean, when I read a statement like that from an permanent whiner here on slashdot, I can understand it, but when I read it from people who are paid to make insightful commentary, then it just blows my mind. I would love to listen to this clown explain why Apple should undercut its own hardware sales.

Nice job, editors (1)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105215)

from the see-it's-a-clever-twist-of-one-letter dept.

Boot ==> Bunk is, I believe, three letters. That's OK Zonk, we'll review counting again tomorrow.

-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

yeah .. because... uh .. (1)

oh_the_humanity (883420) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105220)

And they said that thats what its for right ? its bunk because they said were going to release this software so that more people switch !!! Or perhaps , just maybe they released it for mac owners who still need to use windows app's or services, that virtual PC's emulation is too slow for. This is just another way for other companies to ride on the market popularity of apple, by saying what ever apple is doing is crap.

not true -- i'm proof (4, Interesting)

boxlight (928484) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105231)

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 [slashdot.org] .

boxlight

Its a sales pitch, not a product (1, Redundant)

moderators_are_w*nke (571920) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105235)

Boot camp is a sales pitch, not a product

Customer: Tell me about this laptop, its pretty

Salesman: Its a mac, look how shiney it is.

Customer: Oh, I don't want one of those, it doesn't run Windows.

Salesman: It has this clever boot camp thing that lets you put windows on it.

Customer: Oh, okay, I'll take one then.

Once the customer gets home and starts using MacOS X, they won't bother with installing Windows.

Chameleon (1)

zoeblade (600058) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105238)

Apple needs to... support a true Mac virtualisation application.

Like the rumoured [macrumors.com] Chameleon virtualisation application?

Pundits are dumb. (1)

ZombieRoboNinja (905329) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105242)

I mean, stuff like this is annoying enough when you see it moderated +3 Insightful on Slashdot, but now it's getting presented as an informed opinion? Come on.

Obviously, some people don't care enough about OSX's eye candy, security, stability, etc. to make it worth paying a bit extra for. Even MORE obviously, these people aren't Apple's target market.

PRE-Boot Camp, Apple has maybe 5% of the overall home PC market, right? So that's 1 in 20 people willing to give up all the games and productivity applications that are PC-exclusive just for the shiny graphics and Mac applications this guy is poo-pooing. How many MORE people will be willing to buy a Mac now that they can still run those Windows games and applications on it?

I think part of the issue is that these pundits won't consider Apple a success until they have more market share than Dell. But honestly, even if Apple only goes up to 10% of the total market share, that's DOUBLE their sales - and they've presumably got a much better margin on their boxes than Dell and pals, because of the infamous "Apple premium."

With Boot Camp, Apple customers win because they can suddenly run a huge library of new applications. Apple itself wins because it can sell computers to all those borderline "switchers" who see the ability to run AutoCAD or Half-Life 2 or whatever as a mandatory system feature. Hell, even Microsoft wins because it gets to sell a few non-OEM copies of Windows at crazy markup prices. The only people HURT by Boot Camp are (1) the Apple harcore who have too much invested in their corporate loyalties, and (2) those of us still on PPC Macs, who can expect to see our application support slowly wither and die.

I think CNet's looking at it wrong (2, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 8 years ago | (#15105266)

I think CNet's coming to the wrong conclusions. Firstly, Apple's never going to license OSX on anything but Mac hardware. Control of the hardware's what gives Apple the ability to keep OSX stable and easy to install, they aren't going to give that up. What they've done with Mac-on-Intel and Boot Camp, though, is made buying Apple hardware safe for Windows users: whether you like OSX or not, you will be able to run Windows on your Intel-based Mac. Boot Camp isn't directly intended to let people dual-boot, it's intended as a warm fuzzy "Look, if OSX isn't for you you haven't wasted the price of that nice shiny hardware you bought.".

I think Apple fully intends to have good PC virtualization software as well. Intel hardware will make that easier. At that point they've got an attractive path to migrating people off Windows. They'll be able to say "If you buy a Mac with OSX, you can still run all your Windows software as well as you could on your Windows machine. If it turns out you've got one or two programs (like games) that won't run under the virtualization software, you can dual-boot into Windows if you have to. And if OSX just plain won't work for you, you can just wipe it and run Windows all the time and still have the shiny Mac hardware for people to drool over. If you're buying new hardware anyway, how can you go wrong?".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?