Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Going To Boot Camp 531

An anonymous reader writes "PC World has first impressions of what it's like to run Windows with Boot Camp, the recently announced official dual-boot software for the Intel Macs." From the article: "Back in Windows, I got right down to business and installed a few games to put the graphics and sound support to the test. The quick and dirty verdict on performance? Most impressive. Doom 3 and Far Cry both ran smoothly with high-end graphics options turned on. In both cases, I had to tweak visual settings manually, since the games automatically set themselves to very low settings. Far Cry, for example, autodetected very low settings, but it ran without a hitch when I bumped the resolution up to 1280 by 720, with all visual quality options set to 'High.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Going To Boot Camp

Comments Filter:
  • by tpgp ( 48001 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:11AM (#15076282) Homepage
    How many mac users felt dirty reading the following comments?
    ....preferences page that Boot Camp installs to ensure that XP was set as the default OS.....
    I'd think I was working on a standard Windows PC with a wide-screen monitor. And that's exactly what you'd want from a usable dual-boot system.
  • Let me guess... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:12AM (#15076285) Homepage's just like running Windows XP on any other x86 hardware, but in a bright white box?
  • by avalys ( 221114 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:28AM (#15076507)
    To everyone who thinks this is going to be Apple's demise, you are completely wrong. No one buys a Mac for the hardware. Apple blathers on and on about how they're a hardware company, but that's bull. They're a software company, and they make the best desktop operating system on the planet.

    No one is going to buy a Mac now to run Windows on it. They're going to buy a Mac because they've always wanted to try OS X, but they have a few stubborn applications that they need to run on Windows, and until now couldn't justify the risk of switching and losing access to them. People on here would say "Just keep a second computer!", but most people aren't interested in that.

    It is absurd to suggest that Apple is going to die now that people can run Windows on their Mac. The whole point of a Mac is NOT to run Windows. That's why people pay Apple's high prices - for the ability to run OS X. Companies are not going to stop making OS X software just because Apples can run Windows - if people wanted Windows, they would've bought a freaking Dell!

    What this does is make it possible, not convenient, for people to run any Windows applications that they still depend on. I don't understand why people think this means companies will stop porting applications to OS X - no one is going to tolerate dual-booting between OS X and Windows to use any major desktop application.

    The only things that will be affected are utility programs from small companies that don't primarily make software - for instance, I have a GPS unit and Meade Telescope that can both only be updated from Windows. I'd imagine any plans for Mac ports of those utilities are going to be put on hold (I doubt they even existed). That's a little bit annoying, but you have to take the bad with good.

    As for games, Mac gaming is not in an especially robust state at the moment anyway. I really don't care to see it die, I've never played a game on my Mac.

    Take my dad, for instance. He loves to play chess against Fritz 8 and over the net with, which I bought him a few years ago. But it only runs on Windows. He's been wanting to get a Mac when his current computer dies, but until now he wouldn't be able to run his favorite software. He doesn't mind the hassle of dual-booting.

    This will entice a huge population of people who have been teetering on the edge to make the switch. And now every time they reboot into OS X from Windows, or into Windows from OS X, the superiority of OS X will become clear. Even more so as time goes on, when the Windows installation becomes a spyware-infested, bloated piece of crap with fifteen different taskbar icons taking up 30MB of RAM each that starts to pause mysteriously after common tasks, and OS X just keeps humming along.

    I didn't have any plans to upgrade my PowerBook before this, but I'm going to pick up a MacBook Pro this weekend.
  • OS X games (Score:5, Insightful)

    by suzerain ( 245705 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:30AM (#15076524) Homepage
    One sad thing about this, as a Mac user and Mac gamer, is that this probably puts a big fat nail in the coffin for AAA OS X-native game titles. Or maybe it's less of a nail, and more like sticky tape, meaning the coffin can be reopened if OS X attains a bigger critical mass.

    Another interesting side-effect is the stats. Apple is always fond of calling people 'switchers', as if when the person buys a Mac for his home, his Windows box suddenly disappears. Well, now, we've got a machine that can run is it? Makes me feel like the only real way to track platform penetration will be browser stats.

    Strange new developments, indeed, even though we all knew it would happen when Apple went Intel.
  • That's funny (Score:5, Insightful)

    by punkr0x ( 945364 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:31AM (#15076526)
    Firefox downloaded and installed flawlessly, and iTunes streamed songs easily from other PCs on the network.

    So he installed a better browser, because IE is crap... and ran iTunes. Why is he even doing these things in XP, he has OS X on the damn machine!!

    Obviously the big reason is games, but I think this is going to be bad for gaming on macs in the long run. Not many developers released their games on mac before, but why bother now? Just install XP!

  • by Lave ( 958216 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:33AM (#15076557)
    Has this idiot never played FarCry before? Of course it starts out at a default, low resolution. And of course you can set it higher, if you want.

    Whilst this has nothing to do with the whole windows/os x debate, I didn't want to let this slide.

    I gave up on PC games because of this. I want to sit down and play a game. Not sit down and spend hours fiddling with graphic settings. I hated it when I thought I had got Morrowind running fine, then I would hit a "busy" place, or scene or battle, and it would slow right down, and I would have to go back to the settings page.

    It's a constant nag in your head. "Is this giving me the optimum experience, should I reduce the quality in exchange for frame rate". And it's not fun for me.

    I know people like to tinker. Hell I use Linux daily, and I understand that joy. But fiddling with settings kill's the "imersion" for me. Imagine what Ocarina of Time would have been like if the first time you walked out onto the field of Hyrule, instead of thoughts on the wonderful possibilites stretching out infront of you, the first thing that popped into your head was "Frame rate's taken a hit, lets reduce settings again."

    If a game company can't automatically work out what settings your game should be running at - then they've failed at their job.

    (P.S. If anybody replies that I just need a better computer, then well done, you have a massive e-penis.)

  • by GauteL ( 29207 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:39AM (#15076627)
    "Has this idiot never played FarCry before?"


    First, quite a lot of non-idiots have never played Far Cry.

    Second, most modern games, can (and should) automatically detect graphics settings according to the computer hardware. You are free to change the settings afterwards. The importance of this is easily seen with most modern shooters (or Oblivion), which have obscene amounts of graphics settings. I'm sure Oblivion has around 20 different levers with at least ten options each. Giving a massive 10^20 number of combinations. Some help from the game designers in finding an optimal setting automatically is much appreciated.

    If I wasn't so diplomatic, I'd be tempted to call anyone wanting to waste time testing all combinations a moron.
  • by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:40AM (#15076641) Homepage Journal
    Jeez, dude, get a life. This is second time you've made a lengthy, breathless post on this subject, and both of them covered pretty much the same ground. I appreciate some of the information you've provided, but you need to get a grip — this is a new product from a semi-major hardware company, not the return of Jesus.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:46AM (#15076706)
    there's no way to tab through windows in all applications without a shareware program

    Alt-TAB tabs between programs
    Alt-~ tabs between windows within a program
    CTRL-F4 tabs between all windows

    Personally, I've just mapped CTRL-F4 and Expose to the thumb buttons on my Logitech MX500 mouse, and application switching is simpler than in any other system I've used.

    That's right, you have to move your mouse 3,840 pixels to the left to choose something in the Edit menu.

    Since the menu is at the edge of the screen, there is no chance of "overshooting" the menu (this adheres to "Fitt's Law []" - the size of a target on the edge of the screen is essentially infinite). Using pixels to measure mouse distances is useless anyway, since the amount of movement actually required to move the length of the screen should be the same regardless of resolution.
  • by BoRegardless ( 721219 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:48AM (#15076731)
    You noted "That's why people pay Apple's high prices - for the ability to run OS X".

    I was going to buy a Dell M90 loaded = $3500 or so

    MacBook Pro with all options = $3400

    There are memories, false memories & damnable lies...and I think we know which
  • Re:Let me guess... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by base_chakra ( 230686 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:48AM (#15076735)
    Yeah, Boot Camp is exciting and great, but this article is total fluff. "Firefox downloaded and installed flawlessly." Just the kind of unrelenting journalism I expect from PC World.
  • Re:Bullshit (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:50AM (#15076759)
    Howabout you macintosh retards take your mac and shove it up your ass along with your pride.

    They would shove it up their ass but it's too stuffed with cock as it is.
  • Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ProfessionalCookie ( 673314 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:00PM (#15076869) Journal
    This is just about gaming.
  • Excellent idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:03PM (#15076899) Homepage Journal
    Best thing Apple did since... well, I think since the MacBook Pro because they've done a lot of great things this year already.

    Early in my days, I tried to get people switch to Linux by explaining all its advantages, helping them to install it, the whole nine yards. Worked sometimes, didn't work most of the time.

    Since then, I've gone another path: The slow migration. Show them Firefox. Give them OpenOffice. Get them to use Thunderbird. etc. Then, when they are angry about their next windos crash, suggest Linux and show them that all of those run on Linux just the same. Instant switch. Moved my girl to Ubuntu just a few weeks ago, and she only boots dual-boots into windos for games by now.

    Apple's using the same technique. Let people use what they're comfortable with, but tease them with the better thing (OSX) while making the switch as painless as possible (runs in same hardware).

    By the time Vista comes out, Apple will probably have a sizeable chunk of the market, definitely more than 10%.
  • by Fished ( 574624 ) <> on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:03PM (#15076908)
    I think a lot of people are missing the true significance of bootcamp. What bootcamp does is, for the home user, reduce the risk of buying a Mac. A lot of home users (even fairly savvy ones) are uncomfortable with the idea of jumping to a Mac if it's a one-way trip, and if they don't like it they're stuck with this very expensive piece of hardware that is useless to them because they need to run "X".

    Now, they can buy a Mac in the knowledge that, if there is some vital piece of software (be it a custom app, or a game, or whatever) it /can/ be run. And, if they just hate Mac OS, they still have a very slick Windows box. This is even more the case with the availability of virtualization solutions--Apple now has a convenient transitional platform for switchers.

    What Apple is betting on is that the user experience on Mac OS X is enough better that, when users get to try OSX and Windows side-by-side, they'll prefer OSX. Where OS2 missed was not by offering compatibility, but by failing to offer any compelling advantage to running native. Apple offers many compelling advantages, including a spiffy look and feel, much better "ease of use", and much less risk from malware. And that is why this strategy makes sense.

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:13PM (#15076997)
    As a Mac user I'm excited about being able to run Outlook for work and IE for intranet access while being able to do everything else in OS X proper.

    The reason we are excited is because we can start sneaking Macs into work right and left now without anyone noticing, since we can still get to our calendars.

    I know a number of people where I work who would bring in thier own computer just to be able to use OS X daily instead of Windows.
  • Re:Let me guess... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:16PM (#15077026) Journal
    Yeah, Boot Camp is exciting and great, but this article is total fluff. "Firefox downloaded and installed flawlessly." Just the kind of unrelenting journalism I expect from PC World.

    Here's the funny thing. If I ever load Windows on my Mac, the last thing I'm going to do is use it for anything that has to do with the web, except maybe online gaming. If I want to do e-mail or browse the web, I'll switch back to OS X so I can avoid all the Windows Malware out there.

  • by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:22PM (#15077090)
    Its the first time I've seen so many Macheads get so excited about running windows (or windows applications).

    Yeah, dual booting any PC has not interested me in almost 10 years. Its a PITA, wastes time, etc. It might be of interest if I could put an OS to sleep and maintain its state, but starting fresh multiple times in one day is of no interest to me.

    Am I the only one that found this line interesting? --

    "Back in Windows, I got right down to business and installed a few games..."

  • by pi radians ( 170660 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:22PM (#15077095)
    Its the first time I've seen so many Macheads get so excited about running windows (or windows applications).

    You obviously weren't around 10 years ago for the release of SoftWindows, Virtual PC, RealPC, or OrangeMicro's PCI x86 compatible cards. The only people who are shocked by Apple's actions and Apple users' excitement about Windows compatibility are those who haven't been paying much attention. Heck, Apple even had print ads and a TV commercial showing their systems running both OSs at the same time.
  • by diamondsw ( 685967 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:35PM (#15077222)
    We may only be months away from a general x86 release of OSX.

    That's completely fucking asinine.

    Windows and OS X on a Mac = Hardware revenue for Apple
    Windows and OS X on a PC = Hardware revenue for someone else

    Explain why this is such a good idea?
  • by VendingMenace ( 613279 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:39PM (#15077271)
    A fair set of questions...
    some of our windows boxes do dual boot, the linux box that does not functions as a server.

    I suppose that a KVM switch is an acceptable option, and we do have two for some of our workstations. However, we have 16 seperate LAB computers in our lab and 5 personal computers. I just feel that the flexibility in our lab would be greater if the majority of these computers could run both mac and windows. It seems better to have 16 macs that 32 computers all hooked up to KVM switches. I don't know. This is just my opinion of course. I guess best would be to use a fast mac with virtual PC so that you do not have to reboot to switch.

    The problem in our lab is this...
    The vast majority of our data aquisition is done on PC's. However, almost all of our simulation software is either written for mac or linux. SO what ends up happening is that there is enevitably a crunch for mac time, when everyone is trying to recreate their experemental data via theory. It just seems that if you have a mac on your instrument, then you could aquire the data, and without moving reboot into windows in order to process it. Seems nifty to me.

    Now of course, buying 16 new macs is somewhat cost prohibitive, but for a well-funded group (which usually has an equipment budget in which some money is to go to computers) it would now be unreasonable to replace a few of the old PC with new macs.

    I know that in our lab we could easily afford to buy four new G5s. Functionally, this is the same as having two seperate computers. Cost wise it is cheaper than buying a g5 AND building a PC. Plus then we have 1/2 as many computers overhead (the floor is not really an option in a synthetic chemistry lab).

    Like I said, you have some good points. But really, i see no reason why a lab would by PC's anymore, if they ever needed to use a mac. From a cost perspective, it is cheaper to just by the mac and and dual boot. Space wise, it is smaller, and time crunch wise it makes sense -- work up the data right after you aquire it -- without moving.

    I doubt all researchers will go mac, but i really would not be suprised if most do...
  • by dbrutus ( 71639 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:44PM (#15077324) Homepage
    No doubt this 1st beta release is a response to kill any adoption of the "hack" method with attendant community creation. I think that it's very likely that the normal course of events would have seen the beta released later with all hardware drivers already written at least in rough form.
  • by dbrutus ( 71639 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:54PM (#15077424) Homepage
    Is Gillette a razor company or a razor blade company. Their customers think they are a razor company and buy their razors. The stockholders know that they are a razor blade company, with razors being sold at a loss to gain volume on their core product, razor cartridges.

    So who is right?

    Apple is a hardware company like Gillette is a razor blade company.
  • by Zathrus ( 232140 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @01:00PM (#15077483) Homepage
    was going to buy a Dell M90 loaded = $3500 or so

    MacBook Pro with all options = $3400

    Huh, I get $3600 for the MacBook... or did you forget to include the 3 year warranty that's standard on the Dell M90?

    But even so, you're comparing a 17" laptop with 1920x1200 resolution and an insanely powerful graphics card (Nvidia Quadro FX 2500M w/ 512 MB dedicated memory) to a 15" laptop with 1440x900 resolution and a very powerful graphics card (ATI Mobility 1600 w/ 256 MB dedicated memory). Not to mention the vast raft of other differences between the two. And the Dell is more expensive? Imagine that! I bet you didn't even try to use free Dell coupons that cut the price down, now did you? Hell, I can't even guess what screwed up way you configured the Dell to make such an absurd comparison -- because, unsurprisingly, you didn't give details.

    Hey, let's try for a more fair comparison.
    Base level MacBook Pro: $1999
    Dell Inspiron E1505 upgraded appropriately: $1501 - $450 = $1051 (upgrades: T2400 CPU, XP MCE install CD, remote control, 15.4" WSXGA screen, 512MB single DIMM, 80 GB 5400 rpm HD, 8X DVD/CD DL burner, 3945 Wireless NIC + Bluetooth, ATI Radeon X1400)

    Now the Dell is not a 100% replica of the Apple, but neither is the Apple completely superior to the Dell. This isn't a full list of differences, but it hits the high points:

    Dell advantages: Higher resolution screen (1680x1050), dual layer burner, built in modem, two mouse buttons on the laptop itself, $950 in your pocket. (Yesterday you could've gotten 1 GB of RAM for the same price, but that deal expired)

    Mac advantages: Much more powerful video card, slightly faster RAM (the Dell can take the RAM, they're just being cheap asses), integrated web cam, backlit keyboard, can boot both OS X and XP.

    Again, that's not a full list. There are software differences (which are solved for $1000 for what essentially boiled down to running OS X. I suspect most other people look at it the same way.
  • Puzzled (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Gorkamecha ( 948294 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @01:01PM (#15077497)
    Help me here, as one who does not have the apple logo tattooed on the back of his head. I'm on "mac" hardware (now intel based), running windows XP with the option of switching back to the Apple software.....but the programs I want to run are in the windows side of things. How is this anything but a blow to the Temple of Apple? How long will it be before companies stop making Apple versions of any program (why spend your resources on a two prong approach?)...And if you have to switch less and less to the Apple OS, why do you need that OS at all???
  • by pandrijeczko ( 588093 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @01:32PM (#15077796)

    Sorry to be so blunt but your argument fails on several counts:

    1. Since most "home users" have got Windows XP on their PCs as an OEM license, possibly with a Dell/HP/etc recovery disk for their PC, there is no way they can migrate run XP on an Apple unless they go buy a proper copy of XP on a CD at their local computer store. So, in their "unsureness" about commiting fully to Apple, not only do they have to pay for completely new hardware but also another copy of XP (in most cases). I don't see many "home user" types bothering with that at all.

    2. Let's lump all the Linux and OS X "home users" into the same group for one moment. The chances are that group of people have moved to their non-Microsoft OS of choice because they are pretty savvy with computers, have had a lot of experience with Windows in the past and have made an informed decision to use an alternative. But it is not Joe Average-types that do this, it's people with some knowledge about computers that do it.

    In reality, you're trying to hide what is, in fact, a big climb-down and U-turn by a lot of Apple users. Before, you couldn't run XP so you spent a lot of time on here detailing the superiority of OS X to XP - but now you can run it, it's a different matter...

  • by vought ( 160908 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @01:33PM (#15077811)
    As you mentioned, there is a true Outlook client for the Mac that synchronizes natively with Exchange servers - but it was dropped in favor of Entourage years ago and hence was never Carbonized to run natively under OS X.

    I never understood this. Microsoft released this software two months before the Mac OS X public beta shipped - and two years after Apple screamed from the rooftops that Rhapsody was the future of the Mac OS.

    In other words, one of the most significant pieces of software an enterprise Mac user might need was developed on a set of APIs that were already deprecated.

    Since then, we've had to make so with running the "real" Outlook in Classic (which is a little like a racing car with two tires half-deflated) or using the annoyingly helpful Entourage, which stores it's mail in a format that seems to have been jointly developed by Vogons and Klingons. (Contrast with Apple's mbox files....)
  • by rjung2k ( 576317 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @01:49PM (#15077976) Homepage
    Because there are 100 times as many PCs in existence as there are Macs? And because Apple makes a mint every time they sell a copy of OSX, whether it's on Apple hardware or not?

    Yes, and everyone knows Windows users never pirate software...
  • by SithLordOfLanc ( 683305 ) <> on Thursday April 06, 2006 @02:02PM (#15078091)
    Envision this if you will:

    Mac dealers (not apple store, but indies) will soon start offering Dual boot systems for sale, I'll bet. This is great you say, windows users can now get the elegance of Mac hardware. Billy G is probably saying that very thing right now. He's probably thinking that this situation opens up a whole new install base, just as Bill H states below. So a Mac user goes into an indie dealer and says," You mean that I can buy this Mac Mini with Windows for only $599.99? (that's $499.99 for the Mini and $99.00 for the XP home OEM)? I'll take it." Great, there's another Windows bootable sold.

    However, look at it from Jobs' view. Sure, I'll bet lots of Windows users will start using Mac systems. Problem is, they're going to see that tiger icon EVERYTIME THEY BOOT THE SYSTEM. Sooner or later, they'll get curious.

    They're going to click on it.

    Some will use it.

    Some won't look back.

    Let's say that the user above was a Windows user that just wanted the sexy SFF box. They try using Tiger and decide that they like it better. The next Mac Mini they buy will only cost them $499.99 ($499.99 for the mini and $0.00 for the Windows XP they decided they didn't need.) Uh-oh, there's a lost bootable sale. Uh-oh, there's lots of lost bootable sales since the useful life of any computer is only a few years.

    We all know that for whatever reason, current Mac users are fanatics. We also know that every single current Mac user has a job, or a friend or a family member with a Windows PC. They've seen Windows. They won't be the ones switching over. I haven't seen Tiger yet. I expect that neither have people like my dad and most of my co-workers. I've heard that Tiger is easier to use. What happens when people that previously had no choice, suddenly do?

    I think Apple is betting that this happens.

  • by tabdelgawad ( 590061 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @02:08PM (#15078143)
    Quick, someone phone Bill Gates back in the 1980s to tell him his idea of creating a $300 billion company will fail! Because of piracy!
  • by Zathrus ( 232140 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @02:31PM (#15078380) Homepage
    How much do hobbyist quality video production, audio production, photo editing/cataloging and DVD authoring suites cost for Windows?

    $99. Adobe Photoshop/Primere Elements Bundle. Yes, that's street price.

    You can cobble stuff together from OSS/Free, but it's nowhere near the quality and ease of use of either iLife or Adobe, so I simply don't recommend trying. Particularly for the video editing/DVD authoring bit (although, on that front, Nero is decent and can be had for $40).

    How much does a PDF creator cost for Windows?

    Uh... free? []

    DevTools? A compiler?

    Both downloadable for free, from either MS, Cygwin, or MinGW. But I do Unix development, so it's not of much interest to me. A decent shell is, but that's what Cygwin's for.

    A full suite of enterprise capable network daemons such as http, ftp, telnet, ftp, ssh?

    IIS is included in Pro (but not installed by default). As is a telnet daemon (not enabled by default under SP2).

    FTP and ssh daemons are freely available online if you wanted them. And XP's remote desktop is superior to VNC (admittedly, one of the rare cases of XP being better), so I guess that's why you didn't mention it.

    Are you seriously trying to say all of that is worth $1000+? I can replace the software for under $200, as I mentioned. Most of the extra functionality can be downloaded for free.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06, 2006 @04:38PM (#15079546)
    More like "dream of the market". They would never make enough in software in the short term to overcome the immense losses in their hardware sales. In the short term, everyone would pirate it to "try it out", and Apple would die, or quit the Mac business and go 100% iPod.
  • by balaam's ass ( 678743 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @08:00PM (#15081076) Journal
    Hi, Mac user here. All these posts about "Why should a company develop for Mac when they know people can just dual boot? This will kill Mac games..."

    C'mon. Mac gaming is ALREADY dead, by any measure. Look at the number of high-end demos posted on over the past year, and you'll see that it's falled off to nearly zero in recent months. GameSpy stopped supporting Mac ladders a while ago. Go to a computer store, and if you can even find one that sells Mac games, you'll see that for all the shelves and shelves of PC games, there's only about 20% as many titles available for the Mac. Call of Duty 2? No. Battlefield 2? No? Half-Life, ...the list goes on. And if a game DOES come out, it can be as much as a year since the PC version came out. And of the games that DO exist, the older ones (e.g. Medal of Honor) are *still* full price, whereas the same PC titles are half as much as they used to be or more. So, only one of 5 high-end titles (at best) and no bargain-bin games, makes the term "Mac gaming" kind of an oxymoron.

    OS X is nice, but I really love the Mac hardware. I'm interested in buying a MacBook Pro and putting *only* Windows on it. To get work done (cygwin, virtualization) and to play GAMES.
  • nah (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Scudsucker ( 17617 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @10:43PM (#15081864) Homepage Journal
    Games that are released simultaniously (or nearly so) will do just fine - i.e. most id and Blizzard games. What this will kill, however, is shipping a title for the Mac at $50 when a year and a half after the PC version was released, which is currently in the bargin bin for $20.
  • MS DRM lockout (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 0xC2 ( 896799 ) on Friday April 07, 2006 @02:21AM (#15082475) Homepage
    So what is to prevent MS from preventing Windows from running on Macs? Either through licensing, or a DRM chip, or simply not providing support (security patches, etc.) for mac installations?

Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan