Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Bunk Camp - Apple Gets It Wrong? 731

Posted by Zonk
from the see-it's-a-clever-twist-of-one-letter dept.
An anonymous reader writes "CNET.com.au has posted a commentary that attempts to cut away the hype surrounding Boot Camp. From the article: 'Boot Camp will do little to coax Windows XP users into switching to Mac OS X. For this to happen, Apple needs to either license out OS X to all users -- not just Mac owners -- or support a true Mac virtualisation application.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bunk Camp - Apple Gets It Wrong?

Comments Filter:
  • Anecdotal evidence (Score:5, Interesting)

    by multiOSfreak (551711) <culturejam@gma i l .com> on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @08:23AM (#15105052) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by LordNimon (85072) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @08:27AM (#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.
  • by CastrTroy (595695) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @08:33AM (#15105116) Homepage
    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
  • by EvilSS (557649) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @08:40AM (#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.
  • by CastrTroy (595695) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @08:43AM (#15105193) Homepage
    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
  • by boxlight (928484) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @08:48AM (#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
  • by drsmithy (35869) <drsmithy.gmail@com> on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @08:49AM (#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.

  • by downrightamazed (643410) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @08:52AM (#15105258) Homepage
    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.
  • by SFEley (743605) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:06AM (#15105366) Homepage
    I think a lot of people are missing the ROI perspective here. Boot Camp doesn't have to save the world for Apple. When you consider how cheap it probably was for Apple to develop and package Boot Camp (which is just a BIOS-spoofing firmware update, a partitioning script, and some peripheral drivers they probably got from their vendors), and how much they've already gained from it:

    1. Some enthusiasts who were already curious about Macs hit the tipping point and will buy one now (and "some" is all it takes to recover development costs for something cheap);
    2. Current Mac owners who had been frustrated about the games situation or need job-related Windows software have their loyalty renewed;
    3. The entire tech world is talking non-stop about Apple. Again.

    With so little put into it and so much buzz earned back out of it, I don't see how anyone could view this as anything but a win for Apple.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:14AM (#15105417)
    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.


    Umm... can you say LINUX?

    Linux is built for an infinite combination of hardware setups and it is plenty stable. The problem with Windows is Windows, not the hardware it runs on. Apple hasn't and probably won't (at least in the short term) release their OS to general hardware b/c they benefit too much from it running only on their hardware... yes, they define what goes into that which means they don't have to worry about support for everything under the sun, but let's put emphasis where it belongs... Apple is a HARDWARE company and they happened to make OSX which just happened to catch on... but they didn't do OSX on their own... remember it'd based on BSD... don't ever forget that.
  • Okay, if you want to look at a ton of articles on boot camp, visit macsurfer.com [macsurfer.com]. It's a very nice and simple metasite for mac news. Since released, Boot Camp is all the buzz so there are tons of articles there. It's also pretty neutral. They just post the links to articles. No discussion, but no bias either.

    This article was listed, and it was the only damn article with a negative spin. Then I see this article here. All the articles to chose, and the slashdot editors of course pick the article which will stir up the most hornets.

    Now I'll admit that there could be a lot of overly positive articles about boot camp, and that this article could potentially have a unique perspective. But c'mon, it's CNet. And I did read the article and it's nothing insightful. Same Apple bashing rehashed to include boot camp.

    Post something balanced for a change that actually gives us real information for a change. Mod -1000 for annoying crap that is beneath the average slashdot reader.
  • Re:FP? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Midnight Thunder (17205) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:17AM (#15105443) Homepage Journal
    If you meant Battlefield 1942, then there is a solution to avoid the need to use Boot Camp: Battlefield 1942 for Mac [aspyr.com]. Aspyr has ported plenty of good games to the Mac. If you have a Mac and play games, then I would recommend supporting these guys, since the do a good job porting the games.
  • by Soothh (473349) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:17AM (#15105448)
    I understand your point, but that is no longer valid.

    Look at how many platforms linux and bsd run on, they are pretty stable.

  • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:22AM (#15105486) Homepage Journal
    it is all about weaning users off of windows

    I'm afraid you're right. I was hoping a future version of BootCamp would take advantage of modern Macs' ability to suspend-to-disk (hibernate) for rebooting into Windows - when you're done reboot into Mac OS and it'll restore itself to where you were.

    But that makes it easier to reboot into Windows, so probably not a direction Apple would want to go.
  • Re:FP? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cookiej (136023) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:36AM (#15105594)
    Well, let's see...

    iMac (lowest model) = $1,299.00 + Windows XP Home (not OEM or upgrade, if you want to do it legally... retail license) $199 = $1,498.00... ... Dell XPS 400 - $1259 + MacOSX $129 = $1,388


    If you're going to get sticky about that whole "legal" thing, I guess you'd have to consider that it isn't legal to run OS X on anything except a Mac. So you're argument is pretty much done right there.

    One fact the dude in the article missed completely is that by ADDING windows to the machine you can still get work done when Windows inevitably craps out. What can I do with my MacBook Pro that I couldn't with my AMD Laptop? Get things done. Does that count? The glaring difference between the amount of time I spend trying to make sure the MBP runs effectively and smoothly versus the amount of time the AMD took has got to be saving me at least three hours a week. Hell, just the fact I don't feel I have to save my work in 15 minute increments (because that BSOD is always just around the corner) is a timesaver.

    For the AMD laptop, I used Norton for AV and Ad-Aware for spyware. I switched to Avast, then to the Onecare beta. I kept my drivers updated. I did the virus scan every week. I sent the laptop back twice for hardware replacement (which was always a hassle.) I wasn't just sitting back trolling for malware -- I actively worked at keeping the machine functioning well. Now, I'm simply more productive. When I want to deinstall a program, I just throw it away.... and it's GONE! No more Registry Bloat. No more crap from installed and then partially uninstalled apps. AND I have unix at my fingertips!

    What made me consider the MBP was the fact that I got a Mini for testing. And it just worked. No hassles. I've had the MBP for awhile now and I can say that the amount of hassle this machne has been vs. the hassle the AMD was in the first few months is FAR less.
  • by mgblst (80109) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:39AM (#15105602) Homepage
    I said "No, I'm perfectly willing to buy OS X. Put it in the stores and I'll pay for it. Keep it locked to hardware and you won't see a dime from me. APPLE is stealing from your livelihood by not selling me what I want."
     
    I know exactly how you feel. I said the same thing to a mate of mine who had just bought back a new games machine from Japan. I said, "No, I'm perfectly willing to buy this from you. Put it up for sale and I will pay for it. Keep it locked in your house, and you won't see a dime from me, I will steal it.
     
    Rusty analogy sure, but your making the point that they (ie your mate) should suffer if they don't do something you want them to. That is your justification for what you want to do, knowing that your mate will in someway be affected.
  • Re:FP? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Noginbump (146238) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:53AM (#15105702)
    You are absolutely correct. Back in the 80's, Commodore released the Commodore 128 that would boot into Commodore 64 mode and run apps (games) written for the Commodore 64. This was becuase of the pre-existing base of apps already written for the C64. What happened was nobody wrote new apps native for the 128 because they could cover all their bases with a C64 version. Because of this, the C128 didn't do well on the market. Why buy a C128 if everything is written for the cheaper C64?

    Likewise, if I had to hire some Windows programmers and some Mac programmers to get two versions of an app out in six months. I would be better served to hire only Windows guys and get it out in three months.

    Apple isn't stupid and they have to know this. So, I have to wonder if the Mac version of Office is going away and this is Apple's way of keeping a way to run Office.
  • by alfredo (18243) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @10:11AM (#15105857)
    might be the way to go. Parallels.com [parallels.com]
  • Re:FP? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jbolden (176878) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @10:19AM (#15105918) Homepage
    You have a low number so I figure you are old enough to remember OS/2. OS/2 desktop users who had windows software didn't by in large run OS/2 software. OS/2 was a replacement for Desqview, and often they ran one or two apps (like the multithreaded word processor, or the version of 1-2-3 that could use massive memory like 32 megs).

    The Mac user base (at least right now) if filled with Mac snobs who hate windows apps. Hate enough that are often willing to use inferior (from a features perspective), and more costly apps. That's a very different base than the OS/2 base.
  • by jridley (9305) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @10:21AM (#15105943)
    I didn't say I'd actually gone out and stolen the OS. I said I *wanted* to run the OS. But I won't, because I can't get it legally. I'm not going to do it. I'd like to be running OS X but I don't want to buy even more hardware than I already have.

    I realize they don't HAVE to sell it to me. But it seems to me that if a company has a product that people want, they should put a price on it and make it available. If there are externalities to selling the product separately then they should alter the price accordingly.

    If they ever make it available, I'll buy it. If they don't, I won't run OS X. Pretty simple.
  • by jridley (9305) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @10:38AM (#15106064)
    And you betray a infantile understanding of ethics and morality if you think not getting your way is justification for violating somebody else's IP and wishes for their property.

    Did I say I'd DONE it? No, I said I WANTED to BUY OS X. I'm not going to move to Mac because honestly I'm not convinced that it can take over all my jobs. I'd like to play with it. If it turns out that OS X can do everything I need, I probably will buy a Mac eventually. But I'm not going to go out and buy a piece of hardware that's locked to an OS that I'm not sure I want to move to.

    Therefore, as I said, Apple gets not a dime from me, and I don't get OS X.
  • Re:Well, obviously. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Bob 4knee (756841) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @10:59AM (#15106251)
    When I first saw the boot camp announcements, I thought "Nice. Won't effect me, but might sell some more computers". A couple of days later, I realized that it probably will effect me. We've got a biege G3 that was new 8 years ago, which is still the only computer that belongs to the house. I've got a dual boot XP/Fedora box in the basement that I use to mimic the set up that my students use. It's not even connected to the internet. I use my laptop (Powerbook) whenever I'm home, but the wife and kid are stuck with the G3. We've been thinking about buying a new one for about two years. It keeps coming back to the fact that neither adult cares for windows, but of the kids games (school house rock, not GTA) half claim to run on OS-X, but all claim to run on XP.

    If we bought a WinTel box, it would be booted into Linux for the adults and we'd have to reboot for the kids games. If we bought an OS-X box the adults would be happy with it (I'd have my precious command line, the wife would have her preferred Mac gui), and we'd just limit ourselves to games that worked on OS-X. The wife isn't thrilled with that option (she's the one that has to research and buy the games), I'm not thrilled with paying the MS tax so I can run Linux, so we haven't moved on this for over two years.

    Now that boot-camp is here/coming to 10.5 it's a no brainer. We'll get an Intel based Mac. If a game is so good that we've just got to get it, and it only runs on XP, the kids can boot XP occaisonally.

  • Not just for that (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jasonditz (597385) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @11:07AM (#15106325) Homepage
    I'd already switched to a Mac awhile ago (from linux, not Windows), but this has me seriously contemplating upgrading to an Intel chip to take advantage of this. Before I had my eye on getting a cheap high end G5 Powermac when they finally switched those over to Intel. So instead of me being on the secondary market for a lightly used uber PPC Mac in a few months, I'm looking at buying an iMac directly from Apple.

    But I think this guy (and all the people on CNBC who talk about this being "for businesses") is missing the point. People aren't saying "boy, I'd sure like to combine the price of Apple hardware with the stability of Windows", they're saying "OSX is just flat out a better all-around experience for most things, but some app categories are really missing, I wish I could dual boot so I can use a Windows app when necessary".

    Games are the killer app that is keeping a lot of younger users, annoyed by all of Windows' failings, from switching. The young gamer of today could be the head of an IT department in the future, and if he sees OSX as a more productive system for doing actual work, and Windows as basically "something to play games on", that's going to factor in to future hardware purchases.

  • by NutscrapeSucks (446616) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @11:30AM (#15106520)
    It's also more of a Big Lie nowdays, as Macs are based on the same Intel chipsets that Dell and every other major PC vendor uses. There's nothing mysterious or exotic about their innards.

    When the "leaked betas" of OS X were circulating, people found they had little troubles running OS X stabley on pretty much any Intel PC from the last year or two. Which is only 70% of PCs sold.

    The entire argument is a hangover from the 68K/NuBus days, when Apple really did build an exotic machine.
  • Re:FP? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @12:19PM (#15106871)
    I, for one, ordered a MacBook Pro (2GHz/1GB/100GB/256MB) *because* of BootCamp. I primarily use Linux at home, but I've been stuck with one windows box that I couldn't get rid of because I need to be able to run Visual Studio from time to time. I've wanted a Mac for quite a while now, but as aged as my computers have gotten (newest is 6.5 years old), I couldn't justify buying a Mac when my other systems need updated, and two systems just isn't in the budget right now.

    BootCamp isn't primarily going to move Mac users to Windows (remember if a Mac user was willing to run Windows for something they most likely already were), it's going to move Windows users who have been tempted to Mac because they will still be able to run their set of windows-only apps, and they don't have to shell out all at once to replace their other apps with Mac versions. It allows for a user-controlled migration to a much greater extent than was previously possible.

    BootCamp lets me have my cake, eat it, and not get killed by my wife for blowing the budget. That's a win-win-win scenario in my book.
  • Re:FP? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Ragnarrokk (906696) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @01:48PM (#15107617)
    Not true, games are seen differently.

    Let me explain, I'm a teenager, I have teenage geek friends, and XP is abhorrently pirated to no end. Hell, most of the people I know have the XP corp. key MEMORISED. There's a reason for this. They build a lot of computers, and they have to reformat a lot. I'm not meaning their machines, but you know how it is. Friends/relatives/schools always call on "that computer whizz" to fix their machines, and it's mortally wounded with a backup and reformat the only sane course of surgical success.

    Most geeks don't have the heart to tell their grandmother that a new windows copy is going to cost £130 (price checked on ebuyer) and they're not going to tell them to use Linux because they'll never manage, having only just mastered their left mouse buttons.

    Windows is seen as an annoying necessity to run certain apps and games. It's £130 for a terrible but essential product, and it's felt that there's no alternative. For the things they want to do with their computers, there isn't an alternative and as a result there's disdain for Microsoft. Windows is seen as an overpriced arm lock, so no one has trouble pirating it. Partly, people ENJOY that it hurts Microsoft because they have a particularly high disdain for their products and practices. Whether this is ethically correct is another discussion.

    Games are entirely different. You don't HAVE to buy it before everything else, and teenagers LIKE games, and want to support the games they do like. There is the limiting factor that to play online with an illegal copy is difficult in comparison to loading some .bin files with daemon tools, but even with purely single player games like Oblivion, which my friends downloaded before it came out here in the UK, still bought it ON RELEASE DAY to make sure the staff will get off their throne of success and will damn well make a sequel.

    In short,
    Games: A fun product we can choose to support as it brings us entertainment.
    Windows: A terrible overpriced product we are forced to pay through our noses for, only to have it accuse us of being criminals and die slowly whatever we do, while limiting competition through proprietary means.

    It's not a case of. "If we can pirate it, we will.". Believe it or not, teens do have morals.

    ``Ragnarok
  • by Yaztromo (655250) <<moc.cam> <ta> <omortzay>> on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @03:52PM (#15108740) Homepage Journal

    There are two smart things Apple has done with Boot Camp, which should help Mac OS X in the long run:

    • The current release is beta software, and eventually times out (I've read somewhere that it times out in November 2007, but have been unable to find the source of that information. I may be remembering it incorrectly),
    • In order to continue using Boot Camp, you need to buy the next version of Mac OS X.

    A few results of this decision:

    • Apple is selling copies of Mac OS X regardless of whether you're planning on using it or not. If you want to run nothing but Windows on your Mac, you will still need to buy a copy of OS X (in the future) just to gain access to Boot Camp.
    • Presumably once Leopard (OS X 10.5) is released Macs shipping with it preinstalled will come with Boot Camp. However, I wouldn't be surprised if newer version of Boot Camp designed to support future versions of Windows require a new OS X purchase to get the updated Boot Camp software,
    • How will Boot Camp be serviced? My guess will be through the existing Software Update, which requires Mac OS X. As such, it probably makes sense that every Boot Camp user will always maintain at least a small OS X partition on their systems (which may also be necessary to get updated versions of Boot Camp through future new OS X upgrades -- if Boot Camp is upgraded with new versions of OS X, it is possible it will only install when you install the new OS X itself, which will only work if you have a partition to install OS X to in the first place).

    As such, I don't see this as being a big problem for the future of Mac OS X -- if anything, Apple has just hooked in more future OS X customers.

    Now if they would only extend Boot Camp to work with Linux...

    Yaz.

Disks travel in packs.

Working...