Bunk Camp: Apple gets it wrong

By Asher Moses on 11 April 2006

Asher Moses, CNET.com.aucommentary 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. Asher Moses explains why.

Today's commentary piece by Charles Cooper, an editor for CNET.com.au sister site CNET News.com, sparked some interesting debate down here in the CNET bunker. Cooper believes that the ultimate result of Apple's new Boot Camp software (available for download here) will see a raft of current Windows XP users making the jump to Mac OS X. He argues that since Windows users now have the opportunity to sample Apple's fruits without giving up their trusty Windows applications, many will be tempted to jump ship altogether.

I think he's missed the boat on this one, and here's why. Cooper assumes that the existence of Boot Camp alone will be enough to entice significant numbers of Windows XP-based PC users to shell out a few grand for a new Mac -- now that's wishful thinking! In my opinion, not many will even bother.

Dual booting Windows XP and Mac OS X through Boot Camp is superfluous, as you're forced to reboot each time you switch between operating systems, and the Windows XP partition can't read any of the files you've saved under your Mac OS X partition. So what's the point of it, when I could just stick with my current Windows XP-based PC and not worry about Mac OS X altogether? Does OS X really offer any applications that would entice me to purchase a new Mac and put up with the tedium of Boot Camp? I doubt it.

Rather than enticing existing Windows XP users to switch, Boot Camp will be primarily attractive to current OS X users that are lusting after certain Windows XP applications, such as games. This makes sense -- they're already accustomed to performing most tasks on OS X, and only need to switch over to Windows when they feel the urge to game.

Ultimately, with Boot Camp, Apple is only helping Microsoft sell more copies of Windows XP. How sweet of them.

If Apple wants a significant number of users to sample OS X, Boot Camp just won't cut it. Instead, it's going to have to get off the fence and start selling OS X to PC users, rather than restricting it to the Mac. I don't see any valid reason why Apple isn't doing this, as it would dramatically increase its revenue and market penetration. Is Apple not confident that it can compete with PC vendors based on hardware design alone, should users have the ability to run OS X on a standard Dell or HP machine?

However, if Cooper's right about anything, it's that "folks are not clamouring for Windows; they're clamouring to run Windows applications." But let's extend this notion further. To most users, the operating system is simply a means to an end -- a basis for running their favourite applications. So the real potential lies in allowing Windows XP to be run inside Mac OS X, enabling users to execute Windows and Mac applications side-by-side without rebooting. This day could be closer than you think, too, thanks to a technology called virtualisation.

Parallels, a US-based virtualisation software company, is currently in the process of creating an application that will enable users to run multiple operating systems, such as Windows and Linux, inside Mac OS X. Straight from the mouth of Parallels spokesman Ben Rudolph, "This is not simply a 'dual-boot' but instead gives our users the ability to use Windows or any other operating system at the same time as Mac OS X, enabling users to enjoy the comfort of their Mac OS X desktop while still being able to use critical applications from other OSes."

Will Boot Camp be enough to make you switch from your Windows XP PC to a Mac? Or are you waiting for true virtualisation? Talk back to us below!

Topics: apple, mac, virtualisation, camp, boot, windows xp, mac os, user, entice, switch

Related Articles

Comments (164)

  • dd commented on 20/08/2007 04:37 Report abuse

    I don't agree - it's much easier for people to dare to try OS X now, and when they do they will understand how good it is ;)

  • lien_meat commented on 01/06/2007 16:02 Report abuse

    I'm a Computer Science major, which really means nothing other than I've had to study operating systems, how they are put together, and the pros and cons of the way each is made. I personally believe Apple doesn't sell it's OS for PCs because they are running a Unix (like linux) kernel, and they have made it run extremely well for the hardware they have specified. Because they can choose the architecture of their boxes, they can tweak the kernel to be super stable, and run as fast as it can given that specific hardware. This gets harder when you expand your horizons and have to support entirely new devices (sound cards, network cards, motherboard chip sets). For a company like Apple, this means more time messing with the OS to make it run well on all systems. It's a hard job. Linux does it well because it has a huge community fixing things as they notice that they need fixing. It's harder with a company trying to make a profit. That's the bottom line. I would not mind at all to be able to run OS X on any of my machines, but I also understand why this isn't priority for Apple (yet). Bootcamp is a decent enough idea. I've dual booted WinXp and Linux on my desktop before, and it's a really powerful thing. Oh, and for windows not being able to read your files on your mac partitions, you can't blame Apple for that, it's window's fault. I can read them just fine in linux. Apple isn't preventing windows from being able to (like windows does with NTFS and everything else), it's just because windows doesn't want you to be able to.

  • MSForever! commented on 31/01/2007 10:31 Report abuse

    LOL. I've been using PC's since they first came out in the 80's. DOS, Windows 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, and soon Vista. Windows has had its problems, and still does to some extent, but I use XP everyday. Where are all the 'problems' at. I can't see them. If your talking about deciding on what software to buy, out of the 1000's of app's available for PC's, or the vast hardware configurations available, hmm, thats a problem I can live with. I've read comments here from Mackies about how unstable XP is, or what a terrible problem viruses are, spyware etc, BS! I have NEVER had a problem with a virus, because I keep my antivirus up to date. Its a none issue. XP unstable? Huh? What? I worked for a large format digital imaging company a few years ago, and their prepress department used Macs. They had problems with them all the time. (ie, memory leaks, crashes, etc.) I bought an IMac in 1999 running OS 8.5 and thought it sucked. So I 'upgraded' to OSX when it came out, and although it was pretty, couldnt see what all the hoopla was about. I can do anything with my XP based 2.4 ghz Athlon 64 that a Mac running OSX can do. If fact the prepress supervisor at the above mentioned company used a PC! After I finish editing my family videos, and transferring all my movies from VHS to DVD using my Pinnacle Moviebox, building my auction pages for EBay using Frontpage, or designing a nice calendar for 2007 using PrintMaster 16, I will fire up Doom 3 for a little entertainment. Mac's are pretty, thats about all.

  • Tom White commented on 13/12/2006 15:32 Report abuse

    i have just recently bought an imac and i will never change back to windows although the convenience of running windows on os x is great for gaming, but who cares about rebooting when it only takes about 20 seconds. It takes longer to launch windows on a pc!!

  • T. Geiser commented on 26/09/2006 13:07 Report abuse

    I love my MacBook and would only trade it for another Mac. And I love OS X way more than Windows Anything. I think forcing a reboot makes sense; it's the only way to get full speed because there's no emulation/virtualization. Trying to use Parallels Desktop to run Vista RC1 is so slow I have almost given up on it (Vista doesn't run under Boot Camp, yet).

  • cnet150706@scottpierce.c9om.au commented on 15/07/2006 14:03 Report abuse

    Nice article - not! It just shows your ignorance about Apple and its products (software and hardware). Why wouldn't the idea of one machine be a reason to convert or upgrade? Price alone, is not enough for MOST people NOT to buy a Mac. If David Koch can say that Macs will cost less over 3-5 years to maintain and run, why do you say otherwise? I'm using my 6 year old iMac G3 (Indigo) at the moment and it does most things just fine. Native support is ALWAYS better than any form of virtualization. From a security standpoint, it is BETTER that Windows and Mac volumes can't see each other - can you imagine the amount of trauma that could be inflicted if they did see each other? From the comments to your article, it shows 75% support Boot Camp and 25% don't. Yes, I did love Windows at an early point in my life - Windows 3.1. And even then (from a naive point of view), I wondered why it kept crashing. Nothing much has changed. Watch in the next few years, the following will happen to PC's: - They will use the same BIOS technology as Mac does right now; - Microsoft will still NOT allow dual boot to Mac natively; - Microsoft will still make an inferior product. I use a Mac because it works, costs less downtime over the life of the computer, costs less to maintain and is easy to use. OS X is (like some people have said before) a means to an end. Macs booting Win XP is good - natively is a bonus. You should be fired due to ignorance. Dude, use one and shut up. In the mean time, I'm going shopping for a Mac - Mac Book of Mac Book Pro? Let me count my dollars....

  • MyPod commented on 28/04/2006 17:07 Report abuse

    From someone who has never owned a Mac but wants to go out & buy one now; I believe that Apple will get allot of those customers back who opted for Windows because of the amount of software support offered compared to Mac. I have used Mac's much less than I have used Windows & have found that Mac's are a much more enjoyable experience. So for those like me who would like to spend most of their time in the OS X environment, we'll have to create another partition that is compatible with both OS X, & Windows for file sharing. Virtualisation software sounds great, but maybe not necessary for users who rarely need Windows.

  • Hello commented on 20/04/2006 22:34 Report abuse

    Apple is a hardware company. They make the OS to sell the hardware >>

  • Jack Jebedee commented on 14/04/2006 13:13 Report abuse

    Cooper got it right; You got it wrong. The LAST thing Apple needs is the burden of supporting OS-X on thousands of different kinds of hardware. What a nightmare! They won't support WinXP on their system and they won't support OS X on any system EXCEPT theirs. In fact, WinXP is every bit as vulnerable to malware on a MacIntel machine as it is on any other. It's entirely possible to have a dual-boot machine that won't dual boot because one of the operating systems is hosed. And all you'll hear from Steve Jobs is, "Toldya."

  • schmeebis commented on 14/04/2006 09:58 Report abuse

    OS 10.5 will have native virtualization. Did Redmond charge you your ability to research before writing an article, in exchange for the bankrolling?

Post your own comment

Submit

Enter your personal information to the left, or sign in with your Facebook account by clicking the button below.

Connect
Nokia E75 Email made easy. Find out why.
Your iPhone will be happier with Optus.

Must read