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!

Why Microsoft Is Beating Apple At Its Own Game

Hemos posted more than 7 years ago | from the bite-outa-the-apple dept.


ttom writes " looks at Microsoft's promotional strategy and concludes that Microsoft is beating Apple at its own game." From the article: "Apple is to blame for this, at least to some extent. They just had to go and release Boot Camp, didn't they? By the way, please don't take my sarcastic tone as an expression of my dissatisfaction for the product. I think it's great, and I really never expected to see something like Boot Camp come out of the Apple Camp. I know that users have bombarded them with requests for officially allowing Windows usage on a Mac, and the fact that they yielded to these requests is interesting because they've emphasized the OS X and Windows experiences as being completely separate for quite some time."

cancel ×


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

Summary headline is incorrect. (5, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038068)

The summary's title is incorrect, its not really MS beating Apple at Apple's game. Selling windows for x86 PCs is MS's game. Summary should read "Why Microsoft is beating Apple at Microsoft's game".

The article's opening line & premise the rest of the article is based on is incorrect:

You know, I think OS X has been temporarily pushed to the side right now because I've heard more discussion about Windows running on Macs then even before.

No. Boot camp made a small stir, but the vast majority of people out their still see Mac PCs as very different from WIndows PCs (and don't understand the dual boot process anyway). Macs are still getting far more ipod splashback publicity than they were five years ago.

A more interesting discussion would be "Why Dell Is Beating Apple At Its Own Game"? After all, two years ago I know I certainly wouldn't have expected to see:

1) Apple rushing to join an Electronics Industry Code of practice founded by Dell after sweatshop scandal rumours.

2) Apple scoring lowest on a "Green" survey - when Dell scored second highest.

Both those items are areas I expect Apple's marketing (if not reality) to shine, but instead it's Dell with all the glory.

Re:Summary headline is incorrect. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16038316)

Change your fucking sig - I did not say that and I'm getting another headache from having to read it.

Re:Summary headline is incorrect. (2)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038354)

Those are true, but not all that important. Beyond that, if you were looking at the same survey as I was, Lenovo was last. And by the way:

"Why is Apple beating Dell at its own game?"

Apple's Mac Pro is cheaper than an equivalent Dell. Dell has even admitted this, a spokesman sagely saying "it is what it is".

Re:Summary headline is incorrect. (2, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038474)

Beyond that, if you were looking at the same survey as I was, Lenovo was last.

Oh right, my apologies, I should have said "Apple scored abysmally on the same survey, for the same green criteria that Dell came second on".

"Why is Apple beating Dell at its own game?"

Apple is beating Dell at its own game - I never said they weren't, but in sacrificing quality (and marketing?) to build cheaper, more Dellish PCs, they've neglected their own game.

Apple's Mac Pro is cheaper than an equivalent Dell

Well, if you want the precise specs of one of the small range of notebooks Apple offers, it's true that they're cheaper than the equivilant Dell. (I guess Apple have dropped their marketing budget & Dell have upped theirs, making for price/advertising BS parity between Dell & Apple.)

I do find it interesting that Mac fans always point to Dell as their preferred price comparision. I mean....Dell? Is that really the space Apple is competing?

FWIW, If I was an Apple guy, I'd look up the Asus notebooks - made in the same chinese factory as the Apples, with very similar specs. Obviously, as a proud mac supporter, I'd be happy that Apple's offering is cheaper....Except they're not! Asusteks notebooks have a larger hdd, better video card, smaller ff, are lighter, have better optical media options, etc etc etc than the equivilant macbook.

Re:Summary headline is incorrect. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16038421)

1. Apple has included Apple Supplier Code of Conduct in their contracts that anywhere in their supply chain, companies involved must respect human right and what not. Apple joining EIC is simply a PR strategy for the Apple-hostile media.

2. Greenpeace based the ranking on the information found of each company's own website with no facts on the ground. It has no other consideration such as Apple no longer using CRT in their product. Instead, they use environmentally friendlier flat panel monitors. Apple tries hard not to use toxic stuff in the first place so they have to worry less about it reaching the waste dumps, but recycling programs get more points. I wouldn't believe anything said by Greenpeace.

Re:Summary headline is incorrect. (0, Offtopic)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038432)

2) Apple scoring lowest on a "Green" survey - when Dell scored second highest.

I'm running patched OS X on a Dell Precision 530. Hmm - the best OS on the most eco-friendly of hardware. It even works 99% of the time once the correct patches were applied - the only exception is that the network settings panel crashes, so the net card has to get it's address via DHCP (not a big deal since you can push a static IP address to it).


Re:Summary headline is incorrect. (1)

Heembo (916647) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038556)

2) Apple scoring lowest on a "Green" survey - when Dell scored second highest.

Hmm, are you talking about : 8-4E30-9AD5-5497999ABA1B.html []

Greenpeace did not make me happy in this article. Did you note: ""....the methods used to collect information for their report were sloppy and incompetent."

Even so, note that 1 in 10 pc users keep their computers for more than five years, and 1 in 3 Mac users keep their computers for more than fifteen years. I guess that means that the amount of pollution caused by all those old Macs is about 1/1000th

CONAN O'BRIEN, Dead at 39 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16038073)

Conan O'Brien, the late-night comedic genius who entertained millions of viewers in the acclaimed "Late Night with Conan O'Brien," died yesterday of natural causes. He would have turned 40 in less than six months.
Conan Christopher O'Brien was born April 18, 1963 to Thomas and Ruth O'Brien in Brookline, Massachusetts, a suburb of Boston. Mr. O'Brien was raised in an Irish Catholic household as the third of six children, and his struggle for attention as a middle child became a theme throughout life. In a 1998 interview with Irish Independent, Mr. O'Brien said, "My Irish background has had a huge effect on my comedy...I grew up in a large family and there was a lot that went unsaid, so the way we would communicate was through humor. It was the only way we could really express ourselves."
Both of Mr. O'Brien's parents were successful professionals. Dr. Thomas O'Brien graduated from Harvard as an epidemiologist, and taught at Harvard Medical School. Meanwhile, Ruth Reardon O'Brien, Esq. practiced law with a degree from Yale. With strong parental support, Mr. O'Brien was active in youth, taking tap dancing lessons and writing comedic plays that later formed the basis of his career. Mr. O'Brien entered Brookline High School in 1977 and joined the debate team as well as the editorial staff of the student publication "Sagamore." He graduated as Valedictorian in 1981.
Mr. O'Brien then studied at Harvard University as an undergraduate from 1981 to 1985, studying American History and American Literature. He wrote for the comedic publication "Harvard Lampoon" all four years there and was elected president for two consecutive terms, becoming the first student in about 60 years for such a distinction. Mr. O'Brien described his Harvard thesis on Flannery O'Connor and William Faulkner as "the least funny thing I ever wrote," in a 1996 interview with Chris Mundy from Rolling Stone magazine. Mr. O'Brien graduated Magna Cum Laude in 1985 with a B.A. in American History.
After graduation, Mr. O'Brien went to Los Angeles seeking career opportunities. After writing for the networks HBO and FOX, then working for a short-lived stage show in Chicago, he moved to New York. In his native east coast, Mr. O'Brien finally got his big break in 1988 as a staff writer for the late-night sketch comedy show "Saturday Night Live." His SNL team was recognized with a 1989 Emmy for Outstanding Writing in a Comedy or Variety Series.
Mr. O'Brien left SNL in spring 1991 to explore other career interests. He wrote an unsuccessful TV pilot called "Lookwell," starring Adam West, the former Batman, for whom Mr. O'Brien had an "obsession." After that, he wrote for the FOX hit series "The Simpsons," and later became the show's supervising producer.
Mr. O'Brien's next opportunity in April 1993 secured his long-term future as a talk-show host. Despite his onscreen inexperience, he successfully auditioned to become host of a late-night talk show replacing David Letterman's show on NBC. "Late Night with Conan O'Brien" premiered September 13, 1993, and Mr. O'Brien with his self-deprecating humor entertained a national audience throughout the show's run. Mr. O'Brien and the "Late Night" crew won Writer's Guild Awards in 1997 and 2000, and were consistently nominated for the Emmy Awards from 1996 to 2002.
Mr. O'Brien earned other distinctions throughout his career. Entertainment Weekly magazine featured him as one of "50 Funniest People Alive," and People magazine noted him in 1996 among the "25 Most Intriguing People." In addition, he spoke at Harvard University's Commencement 2000 and hosted the 54th annual Emmy Awards.
In his personal life, Mr. O'Brien tried to achieve consistency between his lifestyle and career demands. For five years, he dated and lived with Lynn Kaplan, the talent coordinator for "Late Night." After the dissolution of that relationship, Mr. O'Brien met advertising executive Liza Powell during a skit on the show. Mr. O'Brien and Liza, daughter of Seattle Dixieland band leader Jake Powell, married January 12, 2002 in a small private ceremony in Seattle.
Mr. O'Brien's on-screen personality was that of a gawky man with a twisted humor. He was 6'4," 190 pounds, and wore the shoe size 12. In addition he said he dyed his hair "autumn red" to "look like I do on TV" and to contrast with his blue eyes and fair skin. He spent time in therapy, and often joked about his psyche on "Late Night."
Mr. O'Brien's father, Dr. O'Brien said, "What you see on his show is really what he is. To say anything else about him wouldn't be easy." In addition, Mr. O'Brien's true nature was not always accessible to the public. Mr. O'Brien's publicist, Marc Liepis of NBC, said that Mr. O'Brien's last wishes could not be disclosed to reporters because they were highly personal.
Mr. O'Brien was not entirely contented with his show. "Until now, all my life, professionally, it felt half-right, but it wasn't exactly what I wanted...So when this show eventually stops and is replaced by an hour of country and western music, it'll be difficult for me to do something different. I don't know what I could do to make me this happy," said Mr. O'Brien with his typical dry humor to Mundy in the 1996 Rolling Stone interview.
However, in February 2002, Mr. O'Brien's "Late Night" contract with NBC was extended until 2006 in a deal that doubled his salary to nearly $8 million a year, according to news sources. Despite a competitive offer by FOX network, Mr. O'Brien chose to stay at "Late Night." "Conan is very loyal to NBC," said his manager, Gavin Polone, in a press statement.
Mr. O'Brien is survived by immediate family: wife Liza Powell, father Dr. Thomas O'Brien, mother Ruth Reardon O'Brien Esq., older brothers Neil and Luke, younger sisters Kate and Jane, and younger brother Justin. He is also survived by a famous cousin, the actor and comedian Dennis Leary, as well as many friends.
A private funeral service will be held in Brookline, Massachusetts at an undisclosed location. Only those personally invited by Mr. O'Brien's family are permitted to attend.

You heard it there first. (4, Funny)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038083)

"Apple to drop ad campaign because editor of internet site declares it unsuccessful."

There is another game in town (0, Offtopic)

cyber_rigger (527103) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038088)

Re:There is another game in town (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038122) nux.html []

Has anyone watched this video? That guy's arms are a bit too bare for my liking.

I reckon he filmed that naked. It's like Reflectoporn all over again...

Re:There is another game in town (1)

SleeknStealthy (746853) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038223)

What was the whistling all about, I couldn't make it through the video it was so grating.

Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16038100)

Wow! Microsoft beating someone over something technically related?! It was from the good old Office time that it didn't happen.

Leading to fewer OS X apps? (5, Insightful)

mrshermanoaks (921067) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038108)

Sure, I love running WinXP on my MacBook Pro using Parallels. The real worry is that once you can easily run Windows on your Mac, there will be less incentive to port apps to the Mac side. Publishers will say "why should I put in all that effort when you can run the PC version?" I wouldn't even be surprised to see a wrapper that installs Windows apps on Macs to run without a full version of Windows installed... As a Mac professional, this prospect scares the crap out of me.

Re:Leading to fewer OS X apps? (5, Informative)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038171)

I wouldn't even be surprised to see a wrapper that installs Windows apps on Macs to run without a full version of Windows installed... As a Mac professional, this prospect scares the crap out of me.

Ahem... []

Re:Leading to fewer OS X apps? (1)

mrshermanoaks (921067) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038247)

Ugh. Not surprised. Crap scared out.... Again, as a Mac user I find it not only frightening but certainly intriguing as well. Sure, what Mac user wouldn't want access to all that Windows software. But it's a Pandora's Box at best.

Re:Leading to fewer OS X apps? (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038285)

Yawn. Same arguments have been done to death on Linux for years, despite clear evidence to the contrary (see Second Life).

A few apps won't be ported because you can run them via Crossover Mac, but those apps wouldn't have been ported anyway. Life goes on. As a society we collectively have better things to do than port from one shitty C based API (Win32) to another shitty C based API (Carbon), simply to get glowing buttons. Sorry, but for the vast majority of specialist/single-use software in the world, dat be the truth.

Re:Leading to fewer OS X apps? (2, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038333)

I don't know-- I think many Mac users won't quite be satisfied with running the crossover office windows version of their app. It'll be enough for them to get by and ditch Windows, but they won't quite like it. How many Mac users use OpenOffice, for example? How many people will be happy when there's a good, stable, up-to-date native OSX version?

So I think that this sort of thing will encourage switchers, and the increased user base will encourage native development. Hopefully.

Re:Leading to fewer OS X apps? (1)

mrshermanoaks (921067) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038400)

So I decided to try the CrossOver beta, and used their IE6 installer. Got a message halfway through from VirusBarrier that there was a virus in one of the installer files. Welcome to Windows.

Re:Leading to fewer OS X apps? (5, Insightful)

wp.moore (873460) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038229)

While I'm not a Mac user, I agree with your comments. Those of us who remember the OS/2 fiasco will recall the IBM marketing mantra of "A Better Windows than Windows". That strategy back-fired horribly. Put the arguments of technical superiority aside. The users were started asking a very pertinent question. If I already have Windows, and all of my stuff already works with Windows, why should I go through the hassle of a different OS to use Windows Apps? Bad marketing then, bad marketing today.

Re:Leading to fewer OS X apps? (5, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038423)

If I already have Windows, and all of my stuff already works with Windows, why should I go through the hassle of a different OS to use Windows Apps?

Maybe because Windows itself isn't working well for you? I have to say that, as the manager of an IT department, I'm tired of being over the barrel with Microsoft. It's restrictive and insecure, and I'm supposed to spend hundreds of dollars to upgrade to Vista in order to get an OS which hopefully might possibly work, meanwhile locking myself further into a vendor which has caused me nothing but headaches? No thanks.

Now, I'm all in favor of people using whatever system works for them, and if Windows does the job for you, more power to you. In my mind, anything that lets me move to OSX, or better yet Linux, is a good thing.

Re:Leading to fewer OS X apps? (2, Interesting)

vhogemann (797994) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038442)

Where you see less native applications, I see oportunity for new devellopers.

See, If there are two applications that do the same thing, but one runs under CrossOver/Parallels/BootCamp and the other is native,as a user I'll opt for the native version without any doubts.

The Mac is a niche market, it's very easy to loose your userbase if you do something stupid, like offering some lame emulated version of you app. Somebody else will be waiting to offer your users a better alternative.

When Boot Camp is pre-installed (1)

bfree (113420) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038113)

Apple Boot Camp Because we have nothing to fear

Boot Camp (0, Flamebait)

omeomi (675045) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038124)

I really never expected to see something like Boot Camp come out of the Apple Camp.

If you ask me, the strategy with Boot Camp was an attempt by Apple to go back to the days where they could say, "Look! Our computer is so much more powerful and flexible than a PC, you can even read Windows-formatted floppies on our computer, but you can't read Mac formatted floppies on a Windows machine!"

Not that that was ever much of anything but a flawed argument, based around, I imagine Apple's licensing policy for HFS...but Apple has only a handful of things that they use to prove their superiority over Windows (Less Crashes, More Secure Against Viruses, more "artsy fartsy", etc.), each of which grows less truthful over time. When was the last time your XP box crashed? Mine hasn't in months. And the only reason OSX is more secure is because of its significantly smaller user-base. If OSX had 90% of the market, you can be sure there would be many more OSX-based attacks out there.

'course, I'm typing this right now on my iBook...

Re:Boot Camp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16038189)

When was the last time your XP box crashed?

Really, none of the reasons you mentioned goes to the root of why people use OS X :

Windows is an inelegant mess, OS X is elegant and consistent in comparison.

Any other advantages (lack of viruses, more stable etc) are just extras.

Re:Boot Camp (4, Insightful)

Marcos Eliziario (969923) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038366)

I work for an IBM customer. I have a machine and a table on a IBM building here on Rio de Janeiro, where I can keep a close eye on the project they are working on for us. Well, even having a PC there, usually I carry my Ibook with me, so, let me give an example of how Mac and Windows are different: Task: connecting to wireless network: MAC iBook ->Airport has detect network XXXXX... do you want to connect to it? "hey guys, what is the passphrase?" ..... Connected. online. My colleague's IBM Thinkpad running windows -> Complicated and absurdely ugly wizard-style dialog asking bazzillions of technical details... he asks for help... "I don't know what all those questions mean"... "but, hey, you've connected right?" "hum, yes... but I am using a mac, it just asked for the passphrase", "(*)!" Somehow we manage to find the correct parameters, reboot. he is online. So, do you really think someone that has a Mac will switch to windows just because, he, err.... experienced windows? think again. The only thing I see on bootcamp is that you can run windows games on a mac. It's just a convenience. but even a seasoned windows user will find hard to come back to windows after a little time of Mac OS usage. "Hey, where are my mouse gestures? where is spotlight?"

Re:Boot Camp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16038524)

Ive never seen a windows computer ask for anything more than passphrase (and "Do you want to automatically connect to this network?") when connecting to a wireless network...

Re:Boot Camp (2, Insightful)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038374)

Windows is an inelegant mess, OS X is elegant and consistent in comparison.

This is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I find OS X to be inelegant and inconsistent. You have the Dock, where icons behave totally differently from any other icons anywhere else on the entire system, and where a whole bunch of totally different tasks -- launching applications, monitoring running tasks, etc. -- are all mixed together in one confusing zooming bouncing distracting usability nightmare. You have Finder windows that flip from brushed metal to Aqua when you merely show/hide the toolbar, and that STILL, after six years of OS X, have not come close to regaining the unparalleled usability of the classic Finder. You have places where drag-and-drop works beautifully inexplicably mixed up with places where it doesn't work at all: why can't I drag a document from the Recent Items list to open it in a non-default application? Why can't I assign an icon to a folder by dragging it into the Get Info window? Why can't I drag a document from the Dock to the Desktop? I thought this was supposed to be the One Consistent OS, where everything Just Worked?!

And you have limitations introduced in the name of "elegance". Like the crazy file selector dialogs that force you to laboriously click your way through the folder hierarchy, because Apple has decided you shouldn't want to save time by just typing the path in. Like iTunes, with its "streamlined" interface that just leaves average users upset because they can't understand why there isn't a "stop" button.

Not to mention the inelegant limitations. Why the hell can't I play videos fullscreen in the built-in media player? Oh, that's right, because they want extra money for that privilege. Yeah, let's enhance our customers' multimedia experience with a whole bunch of greyed-out menu options with price tags -- that'll make more elegant!

And the confusing interface that makes no distinction between the fundamental system menus and an individual application's menus. I still haven't managed to teach one aging Mac fanatic friend the difference between closing a document window and closing an application. On Windows, it's obvious, because the application either closes when you run out of documents, or has a giant application window that you can't miss. On OS 9, at least you had the clear and readable task list in the task switcher menu thingummy. In OS X, the application just sits there in the background, with the only indication that it's still running and taking up memory and system resources being a tiny black triangle in the dock. Thank God her new Intel Mac has enough memory that she isn't constantly running out any more -- that was a real pain on the old one.

For all that, OS X is a great OS, and for the most part, the more Microsoft copies from it, the better Windows will get. But let's be honest here: using OS X can be just as frustrating an experience as using Windows. Neither actually has a major advantage in terms of "elegance" or "consistency". When it comes down to it, OS X is just as inelegant, just as inconstent as Windows -- just in different areas.

But don't let that stop you being a smug Mac weenie and wallowing in your delightful self-delusion that Windows sucks in every way imaginable while using OS X is the closest a mere human can come to basking in the reflected glory of God Almighty Himself.

(Flamebait oblivion, here I come!)

Re:Boot Camp (1)

void bear(void) (930003) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038525)

You never get half drawn windows on the Mac, yet every little singe thing seems to draw at a different rate in Windows.

That just pins the elegancy debate for me.

And there was no need to get anti-mac-fanboy at the bottom of your post, made you look like an inarticulate uneducated fool.

Re:Boot Camp (4, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038246)

And the only reason OSX is more secure is because of its significantly smaller user-base.

That is one reason. I really don't believe it is the only reason. I don't think anyone except a few of the more extreme Mac Zealots are claiming that OS X is perfectly secure. If Apple achieves 50% market share, of course there will be a few attacks made for it. Even Apple admits that OS X isn't perfectly secure. What they are saying is that OS X is more secure than Windows. Just the fact that pretty much any user program on OS X can run on a heavily restricted user account, provided the restricted user has perms to run that software, says a lot right there. Some Windows software practically requires you to use high-privilege accounts just to run software, and Windows by itself doesn't warn users if something is trying to be installed silently.

I imagine Apple's licensing policy for HFS.

Now something like that has been brought to the Windows world. What is Microsoft's NTFS licensing policy like?

Re:Boot Camp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16038256)

You're missing the advantages mac really has over windows.

More secure actually has tangible benefits. It means less interruptions to update software. Much less reboots. It means I can spend time being productive.
More artsy-fartsy means its actually designed well. I don't have a stupid reminder interrupting me to say that there are unused icons on my desktop. I don't have a window that says "the computer will reboot in 10 minutes" unless you press the button. And I don't press it 10 times before I'm finally ready to reboot.

Argh, I could go on... it's not that you don't appreciate the advantages, it's that the rest of the people keep saying the advantages are x,y, and z, and people repeat only those. Tell me what you like about your mac.

Re:Boot Camp (2, Informative)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038309)

More secure actually has tangible benefits. It means less interruptions to update software .... I don't have a window that says "the computer will reboot in 10 minutes" unless you press the button. And I don't press it 10 times before I'm finally ready to reboot.

You realise that this nag-screen exists because there are lots of people in the world who [a] never switch off their computer and [b] completely ignore any and all online updates that are downloaded, right? If you think Microsoft does this simply because it's Evil then you clearly never did much tech support ... unless nagged to reboot these people will simply never have updates to core system services (kernel, display server etc) applied. One girl I knew was still dismissing the "please let me install service pack 2" balloon half a year after it had been downloaded!

Like others have said - it's all about market share ;)

Re:Boot Camp (1)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038260)

Not that that was ever much of anything but a flawed argument, based around, I imagine Apple's licensing policy for HFS...

I doubt that, since Linux supports HFS (and HFS+) just fine.

Re:Boot Camp (5, Interesting)

Admiral Ag (829695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038266)

Please not the "security through obscurity" argument again. It's unsubstantiated waffle. One might just as well claim that the fact that OS X has not been the victim of viruses or malware would spur virus writers and malware creators to be the "first". As it stands, the most recent "terrible breach in OS X security" was caused by a couple of guys who had to cheat to hack a MacBook.

If OS X was to be less of a target because of its marketshare, reasonable people would expect the picture to be the same as it was with the Classic Mac OS. That had a hundred or more viruses IIRC. Of course that's nothing compared to what Windows had at the same time, and you could probably put that down to marketshare, since the Classic Mac OS was not renowned for its security.

But OS X has not had a single virus in the wild AFAIK, nor do OS X users suffer from malware. It stands to reason that there must be other factors preventing the spread of malicious software on the OS X platform. Why can't people simply admit that Apple has released a pretty secure platform?

Microsoft on the other hand has released a Swiss cheese operating system that simply can't compete with OS X security wise, marketshare differences or not.

Now let's be fair. I actually (and perhaps naively) believe that Vista will fix a lot of the security problems the Windows platform has faced. It's not going to be perfect, but Windows users should be quite a bit better off than they were. When this happens, the same marketshare trolls will be trumpeting how superior Windows is to OS X security-wise. People can't have it both ways, no matter how much they try.

Re:Boot Camp (4, Insightful)

topham (32406) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038280)

When was the last time my Mac bitched at me about upgrading hardware invalidating my license for the OS, or required some stupid activation process so I could log in.


I upgraded my fathers computer to a new Core 2 system on the weekend and went through so much pain getting his system working; once I resolved the initial hardware issue and was able to actually boot an OS Windows XP decided to tell me it wasn't activated and prevented me from continuing until I activated it. I hadn't even had a chance to install the network drivers so I was forced to make a phone call to activate it.

Then it decided it wasn't a legitimate copy of Windows XP. Seems the date & time were wrong and therefor the copy of windows couldn't possibly be authentic.

Due to the hardware issues I had ran across trying to get the system setup I stripped it down to damn near nothing and installed things one at a time. At which point, an hour after I had got it up and running and passed the first authentication/illegal copy BS, I installed the rest of the memory and hooked up the other harddrive, and installed the soundcard. Then Windows decided it was upgraded too much and needed activation again. Atleast this time I had 3 days grace and could finish configuring the system. Unlike the first time where I wasn't even allowed to log in.

I tried the online activation at this point since I now had all the drivers installed and everything was working well. Online activation was refused as obviously the computer had been upgrade too much and I was in violation of the license; so then it required me to call the automated services again to get a new code.

At which point it refused to give me one as well and sent me to an actual live person.

The live person then asks me what changed, etc, and how many computers the os was installed on. The answer? 1. This is a retail Upgrade copy of Windows XP Pro. It is fully, and legally licensed; I would have had less hassle if the damn thing was a pirated copy!

Re:Boot Camp (0, Flamebait)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038342)

And tell me how easy it is to upgrade your Mac to say an AMD processor and/or adding a nice Haumpauge tv tuner? Oh, your Mac doesn't allow that? Sorry.

Re:Boot Camp (1)

topham (32406) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038394)

Don't want an AMD processor anyway, and as for the Haumpauge tuner? Don't need it, I can just plug the firewire cable onto my High-Def digital cable box and record that.

The net effect of my fathers computer upgrade was a new computer. I can tell you that moving from 1 Mac to another is far easier than the bullshit I went through yesterday.

As a user I think Macs kick-ass. As a developer I think they rock.

Really; I can't lose.

You need to wipe the froth off of your chin. (1)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038469)

So, who bought this new computer that was only necessary because you could not deal with the VERY well publicized and VERY well documented anti-piracy features of Windows XP? You know, the same things that have been there for FIVE years...

So who go to pay for your "victory" in your personal religious battle?

Re:You need to wipe the froth off of your chin. (2, Informative)

topham (32406) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038523)

Actually you misunderstood. The upgrade which was performed was equivalent to buying a new computer; and doing so with an Apple is easier. On a PC if it were truely a new computer we would have had to re-install all the applications. We were able to skip that step for the most part. On a Mac you can just link the new and the old computers together and have it move everything over. Even if the old mac is dead, but the harddrive is ok It's still easier to deal with. (In which case I'd throw the hd in an enclosure and hook it up via firewire or usb.). Free bonus if you can boot the new mac off the old drive when connected via firewire.

Technically he is probably using X-Plane on his upgraded (WinXP) computer right at this minute. He should be happy with its performance, etc.

But honestly if he didn't have as much money tied up in software for Windows as he does I would have readily pushed him to buy a Mac.

The key software he uses is available for the Mac and runs, in general, as well or better on the Mac than under XP. The only issue with him using a Mac is the performance in X-Plane is much better with a good video card and the iMacs aren't upgradable in that respect. Although they perform quite well anyway.

My dad listens to music, does some photo editing and plays a few games. The most important of which, X-Plane is dual platform anyway.

Re:Boot Camp (1, Troll)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038489)

It may well be far easier to go from new Mac to another new Mac. The fact remains that for some reason you wanted to do a fairly major hardware upgrade to your fathers PC. Perhaps a new PC would be a better option... however, with non-Mac systems you have those options. With a Mac you don't.

Not saying one is better, just seems funny to slam one system for being difficult to upgrade while praising a system where that isn't even an option.

Re:Boot Camp (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16038296)

The only thing worse than a troll is a poorly informed one. A PC being unable to read Mac floppies has nothing to do with HFS -- it's the same reason that PC's can't (easily) read Apple II DOS or ProDOS floppies. Apple floppy drives are variable speed, the angular velocity of the disk is adjusted to keep the linear velocity of the material passing by constant as the head moves along the disk's radius. On a PC floppy drive, the angular velocity is constant so material at the edge is spinning by at a much faster (linear) velocity than material near the center. The practical benefit of the Apple approach is that you can fit slightly more onto the media, since you're taking advantage of all of the media's storage density. Leave it to Apple to make such practical use of PI.

Re:Boot Camp (1)

grrrgrrr (945173) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038314)

"When was the last time your XP box crashed? " I find this a very strange Windows xp boxes are becoming very unstable over time especially developers computers. I have seen 2 machines today that came to a crawl when doing nothing much at all and that where 2 totally protected machines with anti spy-ware and virus software. They are probably suffering from dll hell problems. Then consider all the home users that are infected with spy-ware and shit how often do you think they see there computer crash? Saying xp is stable does not make it true at all

Re:Boot Camp (3, Interesting)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038340)

When was the last time your XP box crashed?

At the 3 software development companies I've worked at in the last year, all XP stations, crash frequently. This isn't specifically XP's fault, but the fault of the apps or specific needs of developers. If you leave it running at the login for months, I'm sure it's very stable...and useless.

Re:Boot Camp (1)

clifyt (11768) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038372)

"When was the last time your XP box crashed? Mine hasn't in months."

I haven't had Windows crash in a long time -- unfortunately, I have had individual applications crash constantly. The Microsoft applications that crash are the worst...they generally take out the explorer with it. Ctrl-Alt-Del -- Task Manager -- Kill Explorer.exe -- Run Explorer.exe.

I've had individual aps crashe that caused memory leaks where it didn't take out the system, but the only way out is to restart.

But you are right, the box hasn't 'crashed' in a long time. I buy only full business class systems from recognized dealers -- none of the home crap that Dell / Compaq and others sell (i.e., people know how well their box works at work and think the home stuff will be identical). So its not because of crappy hardware and buggy drivers -- there isn't a driver that wasn't signed at this point.

BTW If Apple had 90% of the market -- of course there would be more attacks...they'd be unsuccessful compared to the Microsoft 'game', but they'd be there.

Re:Boot Camp (0, Troll)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038375)

When was the last time your XP box crashed? Mine hasn't in months.

This implies you haven't rebooted on LEGITIMATE patching recently /1/7/2394 []

Re:Boot Camp (1)

joshetc (955226) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038497)

Mod parent flamebait and/or dumb.

He said crashed. Not the last time he rebooted. You dont crash every time you apply a patch.

Re:Boot Camp (1)

eboot (697478) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038392)

You know I really hate that 90% argument, I mean for god's sake with all the nerd press that OSX gets you'd think if it was really that easy somebody somewhere would have written a simple self-propogating mac virus just for the street cred if nothing else. But the fact is it cannot be 'just as insecure' as Windows because it simply has not happened yet.

Re:Boot Camp (1)

grrrgrrr (945173) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038425)

also there are some thing of os-x that you have to learn to appreciate things that you are not used to in windows and therefor do probably not see. little thing I never see mentions. A lot of os-x is just quality and beauty not only the shallow beauty of the gui but the though that has gone into the details. For example today I happened to see ,i forgot were exactly ,a table in windows that you can only select a row when you select the first column that kind of mistake you will never see in os-x

Re:Boot Camp (1)

ingoldsby (924334) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038433)

"And the only reason OSX is more secure is because of its significantly smaller user-base. If OSX had 90% of the market, you can be sure there would be many more OSX-based attacks out there."

Actually OSX is fundamentally more secure than XP by design. It has nothing to do with installed userbase. There would definitely be more attempts if more people used it though.

Re:Boot Camp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16038449)

XP doesn't crash but the softwares on it do. I do 3D graphics and a good hour is when the software only crashes once or twice. On my Mac system with Mac native software crashes are rare. On ported Windows software the Mac crashes less than XP. And it is a big deal that there is no need for the draconian Windows security. XP also drives me nuts constantly demanding I upgrade. I normally leave those machines off the net but the other day I used one to download software. Well while I was on line apparently Windows downloaded an update. I startred a render then halfway through the shot Windows started prompting me that it was about to reboot. I had to fight it off for two hours until the shot was finished rendering. I no longer allow my XP machines access to the net. Once Leopard comes out I'm switching entirely to Mac and I'll just have one machine dual boot so I can still use Windows software when I need to. Personally I'm sick to death of Microsoft BS and can't wait to finish the migration.

Re:Boot Camp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16038470)

My XP box has never crashed (though i've been through hundreds of app crashes), and has never had a single piece of spyware, and i've had it for 11 months now.

Re:Boot Camp (1)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038483)

When was the last time your XP box crashed?

Uh, recently - the Thinkpad (my only XP box at the moment) has problems waking up from sleep mode when running XP. Not so when it runs Debian with ACPI enabled. So I use Debian 99% of the time. I also had a problem with a web site that attempted to install a virus via Explorer yesterday - fortunately, this was caught by Avast! as it happened, but it still required a reboot and full system scan to make sure all files were clean.

Haven't had that problem with any of my Linux boxes yet (well, there were some pranks in college involving insecure Telnet and sniffers :)


I'm confused (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16038128)

I have heard people at my business who never before considered a Mac very excited about getting a Mac because they can run that particular Windows software they have to run and have the Macintosh computing experience all at once. The downstairs computer lab has been switched to all Mac as well because of this. There simply is no reason to own a PC anymore. You can get a Mac and have your PC, too. All in one.

I'd say OSWeekly knows who their biggest advertiser is and are pandering to them.

Re:I'm confused (0, Troll)

lowlife5 (995002) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038259)

and pay ten times the price as a normal pc (slight exageration)...

Enlightenment is this way (1)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038322)

Well, if you *want* to pay more for the Dell, be able to run less software, and suffer all that Windowshas to "offer", feel free. Personally, I went for the cheaper option [] and bought a Mac.


Re:Enlightenment is this way (1)

n8Mills (1000286) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038508)

Before making inflammatory statements you should do some research. Buying pre-built is always costly, which is a lot of the reason why people like me end up going the Windows OS route. You can't by a modern Mac for under $1000, but with a Windows PC there are a variety of specs to choose from in that range. Sure, when you get up to four-and-a-half grand it changed the game a bit, but I'd be willing to bet that I could build a quad-core machine out of AMD Opterons that would smoke your Mac. On the other hand, it would be running Windows. Then again, if you read Maximum PC, you would know that the Windows install on a Mac yielded better performance on the common pieces of software, making Windows superior when a choice is available. At least in software common to both OS's.

So what it comes down to is the chassis, then. No, but if I was ambitious enough I could get a MAC chassis and build an AMD & Windows based machine out of that.

Yeah, I think that the Mac Look & Feel is just familiarity. If you were used to Windows and not OSX then you'd likely not be making claims like you did. Anyway, 5 grand for a freakin computer, jeez. I hope it's making you money.

Re:I'm confused (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038262)

You would still be buying a PC, and even Apple's ad campaign is saying this. A Mac is now more or less a PC now, being based around the same chips and mostly the same wiring of those chips. It has a different firmware but at least any current x86 operating system can be installed on them.

Re:I'm confused (-1, Flamebait)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038274)

No reason to own a PC, except a Mac is just a brand of Personal Computer, and it's a particularly expensive brand. Thanks, but I'd rather built my own. If you like shiny GUIs with less functionality at a premium, go for it.

Re:I'm confused (1)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038293)

There simply is no reason to own a PC anymore. You can get a Mac and have your PC, too.

Pssst! I have a secret for you... Macs are PCs! That's right; no matter how much their adverts try to create some artificial delineation between them Macs are simply PCs that happen to run a different OS.

Re:I'm confused (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038396)

There simply is no reason to own a PC anymore.

Unless you, uh, don't actually want a Mac in the first place, in which case owning a PC instead can save you a small fortune.

12 year old emo followers? (4, Insightful)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038148)

Is OSWeekly written by 12 year olds now? That's got to be one of the worst article summaries I have ever read, and I've been reading /. for years...

Seriously, you have to be slightly brain damaged to think that MS is better at whole-system integration than Apple.

Re:12 year old emo followers? (1, Interesting)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038249)

Have you ever written a .NET application? If you're into Objective-C, and can integrate with BSD and Core Graphics, then okay, but it doesn't come close to .NET. Whole system integration (especially in the business arena) is what MS does best. Mod me as you will..

Re:12 year old emo followers? (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038268)

Sorry I wasn't clear.

By whole-system integration, I meant from an end-user point of view. You can't go to and order a Microsoft PC that "just works". At least, not yet.

Apple will sell you the hardware, OS, software, and peripherals. Now that's a system.

Re:12 year old emo followers? (1)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038312)

Really? What about Java? And .NET just sucks at security when services are being run remotely. Look at all the RPC bugs that Windows has. .NET also has a lot less speed then Objective-C, as everything is being interpreted. Objective-C is a much purer OO system then .NET, much closer to smalltalk then C# is.

Re:12 year old emo followers? (1)

oggiejnr (999258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038461)

Just a clarification - .Net is NOT interpreted it is JIT Compiled, although it can be compiled using ngen if you don't want the JIT overhead and once a method is JITed it runs fast enough for just about anything (barring high-end 3d games possible). I wrote a program to play sound files in a theatre setting and using C# and Managed DirectSound I could easily playback 30 tracks at once using a streaming buffer system including volume fading and all the rest of the rubbish that was needed. Testing a midi patch bay in C# compared to C++ the difference in speed (once Jitted) was less than could be measured using MIDIOX to generate and record midi data - the timestamp values for both programs were identical. So in the vast majority of situations .NET is perfectly fast enough as long as you take into account JIT overhead which can be precompiled out. There is also the issue of garbage collection but Java and Objective C (I think there was a /. article on this but I maybe wrong) have this as well.

Re:12 year old emo followers? (1)

mrdisco99 (113602) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038276)

Do you think Apple is better at it than IBM was?

Worst Slashdot news ever? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16038159)

The point of this sensational entry being?
Slashdot really lost it. News for nerds? Stuff that matters? Riiiiight............

Give in? Give over! (1)

KennyMillar (813395) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038166)

Apple did not give in to the numerous requests to allow Win XP to run, they simply HAD to be 1st to the door with a dual boot options. Otherwise it would have been only days from the launch of intel based macs before someone else did it. Better the devil you know, than the one you don't!

Re:Give in? Give over! (1)

wootest (694923) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038225)

Unless you meant running OS X and XP on a PC, they weren't first.

The XOM (XP on Mac) solution created to win a contest hosted by was ready in March, some guys at Microsoft reportedly had it working before that (old MSDN weblog entry - I'll see if I can dig it up) and Boot Camp surfaced in early April. Granted, XOM wasn't particularly smooth, but they weren't first.

Re:Give in? Give over! (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038228)

Actually, they released their solution (Boot Camp) shortly after someone else came up with a way to boot Windows on the Intel Mac. I think it was sort of a, "Well, since you're doing it anyway, we might as well give you an easy way to do it properly without breaking anything."

Take a survey of 100 Bootcamp\Virtualization Users (5, Interesting)

mgranit11 (862145) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038188)

Take a survey and ask them how many of you paid or for your copy of XP on your Mac (and are not violating MS EULA). Any guesses out there? I will start and say 8%. I think I am high, but figure almost 1/10 users are honest. Most either: 1. Visited there local bay of pirates and downloaded it. 2. Had a copy from a current PC so are in violating the EULA and installing it. 3. Borrowed a copy from the local IT admin and installed it. Most of the legitimate people may have gotten it from work and they have a ELA with MS so maybe they are not violating. I know all of my friends have not paid for a copy of XP running on the Mac or are using a work copy. All of them. They are using it for testing, gaming and occasional software but are not publishing work from it, so MS will not be able to track them down. I bet this over the long term will hurt MS since many people I know used to buy a cheap Dell for testing, which at least had a legitimate OS on it. Now they just need an XP CD, and its different shoving out $200 for a CD vs $400 for an entire computer.

EULAS are illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16038341)

just hasn't made it to the supreme court yet. You can't sell/offer/rent/license to use products in the US without a minimum consumer warranty. MS tries to pull that shit they aren't responsible for the suitability of their product or its functionality and all that other "not my fault" crap in their EULA. Tell ya what, go make a blender and include an EULA like that in the box,"blender blades might fly off, container might leak, not suitable for food prep even though there's a picture of blended food on the box", etc see how long you get away with it.

I'm amazed all the big companies who AREN'T software renting houses put up with it for so long. They need a mass trillion dollar class action suit against the so called software "industry" over that no warranty crap. Charge billions? Better offer a warranty. Yes, ANY license where it says they aren't responsible for the code they write. Bool and sheet-they are SO responsible if they offer it. Keep it to yourself if you can't stand behind it. First time some bogus software I've "licensed" costs me serious money from fucking up, them mofos going to court over it. It hasn't happened yet, but when it does, lawsuit, and I'll make sure it is open for class action involvement. The software "industry" needs a severe kick in the nads over that, they NEVER should have been allowed "caveat emptor" wiggle room. No other "industry" gets that, why are they so special?? Now it is brainwashed into their collective pointy heads it "can't be done". It comes sputtering out with their other drool. More crap, it sure can, they just don't want to because they make hella more cash without it!

Not sure I understand (4, Interesting)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038190)

When was it Apple's game to announce groovy new products, then deliver them behind schedule, bereft of compelling new features, in more confusing variations than a cel phone plan, with hardware requirements that will spur the market penetration of GNU/Linux, and at prices that will surely drive ???profit???.

Re:Not sure I understand (3, Informative)

DLG (14172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038350)

Hard to take seriously someone who gets confused by a "cel phone plan" but here is my apple experience. Wife has a 350mhz G4 tower she is using for whatever, 5 or 6 years. She goes back to school and as a gift I buy her the recently released and pretty quickly available 'mini'. Its pretty cheap. She moves all her stuff including her apps over to the new box. It runs. No problems. The old machine didn't die. We donated it to a theatre production company. In my basement is a working Apple ][+. Thats a 25 year old PC.

To me, that is Apple. Yes their computers aren't the cheapest, but in 3 years I had to replace my desktop Dell 3 times due to hardware problems. Yes Apple has had hardware problems too, but the quality of hardware IS high, and the Mini is a really nice bit of engineering, as is my Nano.

Basicly Apple does the same thing as most premium manufacturers. They charge more for a product that is better and sexier.

If you are confused with Apple's product lines you have never gone to Dell or HP for computers.

I call you troll:)

The only people losing out... (4, Interesting)

EvilMonkeySlayer (826044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038199)

Are people like Dell, HP and so forth.
My next laptop purchase is going to be a Macbook early next year. The reason?
It can run Windows, that simple. There is software for windows that simply isn't available for OS X that I need. Conversely there is software on OS X that I need that I normally run under a VM with Linux. You could say Linux is a loser in this too.

But Microsoft having the beatdown on them? Nope, Apple see Windows as not going away anytime soon and frankly the majority of OS X users will use OS X the majority of the time. Apple are gaining pc users because of bootcamp.

I own a homebuilt pc and a Thinkpad, so i'm currently not a mac user and hadn't considered a Mac until the Macbook.

NB. I haven't read the article as it's not available.

Re:The only people losing out... (2, Informative)

thammoud (193905) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038410)

You hit it on the head. I wush I had mod points. My next laptop will not be a Dell but an Apple MBP for the same exact reasons that you mentioned. One other strike against Dell is the pathetic support for their consumer unit.

for Windows but not Linux? (3, Interesting)

Neuropol (665537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038203)

Perhaps I'm wrong. Why not a boot camp designed for Linux layer compatibility on mac hardware. Sure, Yellow Dog covers that ground and so does Ubuntu, but how about the two underdogs banding together coalition style? Call it some thing like Degobah System. A place where 'warriors' can train. See where I'm going with all these neat marketing ideas?

We'd all own piles of dog crap too if some one was smart enough to make us all believe we need it.

-ps: the use of boot camp is cheating, btw, imo. As well, I think Multi-booting is just plain inconvenient. Too much time to take to traverse from OS to OS in time of need. I do it. Done it for years. Linux, Mac, and Windows in many forms on many machines. But it's too time consuimg. A person could be better off owning multiple machines running different platforms. Period. As well have tons less heartaches and oh-shit-this-didn't-work-smacks-to-the-forehead about how much time has been wasted setting it all up only to discover som ething trivial, yet major, like wireless driver failure.

Re:for Windows but not Linux? (2, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038273)

Really, I just hate being bound to an OS at all. In a perfect world, apps would be very cross-platform, so you could choose your OS based on the merits of the OS, not the apps it runs. Of course, this requires that somebody convince developers to clean up their act, which I could only really see happening with OSS, because closed-source vendors have too much stake in locking down the use of their software.

Re:for Windows but not Linux? (1)

Neuropol (665537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038336)

I may be an exception to the rule. I have 3 laptops in front of me. 1) windows hp nx6110 2) Ubuntu Linux thinkpad t40 3) Powerbook G4 (gen. II) TiBook

I've removed dual boot from every thing due my previously stated reasons. It's just far too easy to jump from one machine to the next :)

I really like Darwin Ports, hoever. I think that has to be one of the coolest layers ever created for mac. To simply be able to run linux in full compat layer in mac, while being able to 'crtl-apple-a' swicth between mac/linux desktops is one of the coolest things ever, imo.

So i completely agree about merits of each OS. I just wonder if it will ever be as ideal as we'd all like it to be. It seems the lines are blurring over time. Maybe they'll finally blur to a point of total compatibility if the proverbial squeaky wheels continue to ask for grease.

Re:for Windows but not Linux? (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038332)

"Call it some thing like Degobah System. A place where 'warriors' can train. See where I'm going with all these neat marketing ideas?"

It sounds like masturbation over a fucking operating system. Get over it.

"-ps: the use of boot camp is cheating, btw, imo."

*sigh* This isn't a game, it's real life....see above reply.

"As well, I think Multi-booting is just plain inconvenient. Too much time to take to traverse from OS to OS in time of need. I do it. Done it for years. Linux, Mac, and Windows in many forms on many machines. But it's too time consuimg. A person could be better off owning multiple machines running different platforms. Period. As well have tons less heartaches and oh-shit-this-didn't-work-smacks-to-the-forehead about how much time has been wasted setting it all up only to discover som ething trivial, yet major, like wireless driver failure."

I strongly disagree. I take my Macbook Pro to work, turn it on and I have Windows. Everything I need for my work environment is there. No need for OS X at all. I take my notebook home and I only run OS X. Everything I need for my personal life is there, with no need to run Windows. The hardware works perfectly under Windows, since Apple did all the work for me and made sure I had all the drivers on one CD.

BootCamp is a bullet point.. (3, Insightful)

bealzabobs_youruncle (971430) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038213)

on a KeyNote presentation, it will be relevant for some users but the vast majority will likely ignore it. I honestly thought I would install BC when my new mini Core Duo showed up, but I have yet to bother, I would rather use OS X and support OS X developers. I don't think I am in the minority on this topic, I work with several other enthusiastic Mac users and we all view BootCamp as reduction in barriers to switching for some people, nothing more. I've read a lot of comments lately about how "Apple better do this" or else I won't switch, but those people will always find a reason not to buy a Mac so I don't think Apple should expend too much effort to attract them.

Switching to Intel closed the price, performance and (with BootCamp or Paralells) the application compatability gaps; advantage Cupertino. Apple reported their best hardware sales quarters ever just recently, and I have read some speculation that they sold 50% more MacBooks than they expected this quarter (not sure how true that is but the delays in shipping make it plausible). My local Apple Store is literally jammed all day long, including week days and the wait at the Genius Bar is upwards of an hour most days. I seriously doubt all that bustle is for XP install on BootCamp???

The only category that might truly suffer from BootCamp existing is game development, porting is expensive and this is the kind of easy way out the big game publishers love.

On second thought I might install BootCamp with Leopard... if it will let me run Ubuntu?!

Slashdotted already (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038221)

And the summary doesn't make much sense. Anyone got a mirror?

Isn't Apple beating Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16038226)

How many Windows machines can run the Mac operating system? Seems the advantage goes to Apple. A hesitation for trying Mac is that some softwares don't have a Mac version and may never have one. With Boot Camp you can have the stability of Mac and the extra functionality and still be able to use Windows apps without needing a second machine. The one odd issue is the line is getting blurred and it's going to be hard to determine market share. Eventually half of the Mac systems may be dual boot with Windows. Microsoft will still get to sell them operating systems but eventually a lot of people may find they don't need Windows. It's a smart move on Apples part and has no downside. They aren't likely to loose Mac users but they could gain a chunk of market share. Doubling thier market share wouldn't seriously hurt Microsoft especially since the machines will mostly be dual booting for the new users but it'd be huge for Apple. The Intel Macs have been a huge hit and a portion of that success has to be Boot Camp. Leopard ships with it preinstalled so every new system by next spring will be capible of loading Windows. You can already order them that way. I'm curious if it's compatible with Windows 64 bit since the Quad Xeon systems are 64 bit. Definately a win win for Apple.

mambo? (1)

mhokie (988228) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038241) is using mambo? I get enough mambo splashscreens at work, now I have to deal with them trying to procrastinate at work?

Doom! Doom! DOOM! (2, Insightful)

ClockworkSparrow (995531) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038287)

I have absolutely had it with people saying "Apple is dying" or "Steve Jobs is failing" or "OS X is on its way out." Apple are going to be here for a long time. You'll know that they're dead when you can walk up to ten people on the street, say the name "iPod" and get ten blank looks.

Dual booting will never make a switch (2, Interesting)

Agram (721220) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038295)

Considering that there are a number of posts suggesting that the Boot camp will promote switching...

After having managed a number of labs (some multi-OS, some OS-specific), I can tell you both from the maintenance and user perspectives, dual-booting will never make anyone a "switcher." If anything it will just end-up being a frustration to those who are partial to one of the OSs involved. As for those who are not very computer savvy, they will end-up frustrating tech support and vice versa. Boot camp is nothing more than a proof-of-concept idea and a marketing ploy targetting the geeky community. Beyond that, adoption will be spotty at best (that is not to say that there won't be adopters, but simply there won't be enough of it to warrant this move as a catalyst for winning over a large market share). Ultimately, the only way you can make multi-platform labs "just work" is to have dedicated machines for each os (parallels et al do not cut it if you need specialized systems since most of the virtualization options usually do not support several important hardware layers)...

Re:Dual booting will never make a switch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16038481)

I don't know about that.
Intel + Boot Camp already made my brother-in-law who hated anything Apple with a passion suddenly wants to get an Apple mini and wants to learn Mac OS X after his colleague switched and bought a MacBook and showed him that it's faster at running Windows than a PC notebook. He even gushed how nicely things work in Mac OS X, even though I showed him those stuff already.

Some people just need a good excuse to break their Apple bias because they just can't admit that they were wrong. Boot Camp is it and now they can claim that they were not wrong, it's simply that the addition frog jumps the competition.

dual boot is great for new users (2, Insightful)

ragnathor (955771) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038307)

I just installed linux a few weeks ago for the first time. I dual boot Windows still and use it from time to time for certain programs I need or tasks I need to do that I haven't figured out on linux yet. However, overall I'm extremely satisfied with linux and probably wouldn't have tried it if I couldn't dual boot. Allowing windows to boot with OSX will get more people to try out Macs.

OSX elegant? (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038321)

It never ceases to amaze me when people generalize (OSX is elegant, Windows is not, etc). Sure, OSX has several elegant solutions, but not everything on it is elegant. There are some very impractical things about OSX (and MacOS in general, going back for ages). The same way, Windows may have some unelegant parts on it, but other solutions are really very good. I own both a new mac and a PC and I really enjoy working in both OS. I really like the "flash and whistles" of Tiger (the way it windows animates and other things that, had MS implemented it it would be called bloat here in /., but its great just because it's Apple). But I really enjoy it. I don't like for example the fact of having the main menu in the top of the screen and not as part of the Window (yes, i know, Fitt and yadda yadda), I don't like the "dead CDs problem" that arises often when you are working wityh a cd, eject it without realising that some document from it is open and then , reinsert the CD and the system doesn't recognise it, and in general there are a lot of annoyances with MacOS. There are a lot too in Windows but both are pretty mature and great systems in general.

"More discussion than even before", huh? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038346)

1) Does he mean "than ever before", perhaps?

2) Given the ability to do this has been around for all of, well, 8 months, you think maybe some of this discussion is because it's, you know, like a new thing?

Article missed the point? (3, Insightful)

Glock27 (446276) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038355)

I know that users have bombarded them with requests for officially allowing Windows usage on a Mac, and the fact that they yielded to these requests is interesting because they've emphasized the OS X and Windows experiences as being completely separate for quite some time.

I believe OSNews has missed the point.

Apple has always touted OSX as a superior experience to Windows, and is continuing to do so.

However, it is simply reality that many folks have Windows programs they need to run as well. Between Boot Camp and the various VM approaches Apple now has that option covered nicely.

Where does that leave Macs exactly? As:

  • The worlds most versatile computers.
  • Powered by a superior, more secure OS.
  • Able to run legacy Windows applications as need be.
Windows continues to chug along on its own momentum, but I expect Mac sales to do VERY nicely. The vast majority of Mac user time will be spent in MacOS X, I predict. I also predict more and more native MacOS game ports over time, as the userbase swells.

Just another step on the road (1)

BigLinuxGuy (241110) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038357)

to Apple getting out of the PC market.

OK, now that I've got your attention the reality of the situation is that there are some Windows applications that will not be ported to the Mac and emulation was, at best, a poor option. With the change of processors, Apple would be foolish to not provide a method that it controls to allow dual-booting Windows so that their users can have the applications that they need to use for work. I'm not aware of any great cries for commercial apps (outside of games) that most home users need that would be Windows-only. That situation usually occurs when people want to use their Macs at work.

In many ways, Apple is still primarily a hardware company so it should not be surprising to anyone that Bootcamp was released to enable Apple to increase its market share. Of course, with its success in small consumer electronics (yes, I mean the iPod) and the relatively thin margins on personal computers it would not be surprising to see Apple slowly back out of the PC market.

It does make one wonder when/if OS X will be enhanced (?) to work with commodity hardware or if it will ultimately be released as Open Source.

Re:Just another step on the road (1)

Barlo_Mung_42 (411228) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038459)

I think you've made a good point. What really struck me was how public they were with the price comparison between the Mac Pro and a high end Dell. Do they really think a price war with Dell will work well for them?

Apple's commercial campaign just plain sucks (1)

cyberspittle (519754) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038521)

I think that Apple's advertising campaign is horrible. 2 guys standing and pretending to be computers really belongs in a junior high acting class. The Microsoft bashing is not really effective, either. People already know what sucks about Windows PC, but use them anyways. Windows users have accepted the "quirks" of Windows. If Windows really sucks as bad as it did 10 years, OS/2 would be the main operating system. Windows XP is a decent enough operating system that really isn't compelling enough to dump. People use Apple PCs because they like them! That is what Apple should be advertising ... what is great about the new Apples. Selling your product because brand X sucks isn't really a good campaign. I buy a car because it has x, y, and z features. Not because the other car's x, y, and z features suck! Come on Apple! You don't sell iPods because the other MP3 players suck! You sell iPods because iPods are a great product.

Re:Apple's commercial campaign just plain sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16038566)

I don't know if their advertising campaign is all that bad... I have lots of friends and family asking about spyware and viruses on Macs... They are slowing learning the "features" of a Mac by watching these quirky little commercials. E.g. "it just works," no spyware/viruses, cool little designer features that are more thought out that your typical computer (magnetic power cords etc...).

They seem to be reaching the lay computer user quite well in my opinion. Plus they are enjoyable to watch. :)

Apple laptops = yum (2, Interesting)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038522)

Who else makes a laptop as thin and light as the iBook/Powerbook/MacBook with just the right combo of features? Maybe Lenovo, but those seem to be heavier and just as expensive. Dell? Crap quality - I'm not talking about the batteries (an Apple problem too), I'm talking about the fact that their laptops are just generally flimsy and cheap. Sony? Same, IMHO. Failing Cardbus slots, plastic that you can flex with a finger.


Aim: Sell more Mac hardware (5, Insightful)

bestinshow (985111) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038539)

The ability to run Windows will sell more Mac hardware, which gives Apple more money, and increases their marketshare.

People will not worry about having to use a new operating system, they can fall back on Windows without having useless hardware. What would have been a no-sale is now a potential sale for Apple, lots of people are curious about Macs and Mac OS X, but were put off by the risk if they didn't like the software.

Other people can get two systems in one, ideal for laptop users. Others can keep on running that essential Windows app.

As Mac OS X marketshare increases, more and more of those essential Windows apps will get a Mac version, especially if their customers start demanding it - "I hate having to reboot into windows just to run your software", etc.

The road that Apple does not want to go is to support the Windows API out of the box. In this situation, there is less incentive to port to Mac OS X, if your Windows version will just run anyway. Some people think that Apple will support this however, that there will be a Windows.framework in an upcoming version of the OS.

Of course, I've had a Mac for just over a year, and I barely touch my Windows PC now.

I, for one, (1)

moria (829831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038567)

do not and probably will never install bootcamp, at least not for Windows. I have a MacBook, and I CAN install bootcamp, but that does not mean I WILL install one. These stupid arrogant people should realize there will be less and less people dependent on M$'s crappy products, and there will be more and more people realizing there are better choices. It is just at this transition time when Apple wants to give its customers a choice. It's like having Rosetta built in the Intel Mac: having Rosetta on Intel Mac is not saying Intel Mac and PowerPC Mac are "experiences as being completely separate for quite some time"; it's needed for a smooth transition from yesterday's Mac to a today's Mac.

Look at it this way (1)

Lokni (531043) | more than 7 years ago | (#16038573)

There are many many people, myself being one of them, that would buy an Apple computer IF they ran the software they needed. That software is normally only available for Windows. I now can buy a mac and still use my Windows software that I NEED. My next computer will be a Mac, and I am sure there are many many people out there just like me.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>