Bunk Camp: Apple gets it wrong

Well, I priced out a Laptop the same hardware spec as the top of the line powerbook today, and it was over CDN$1000 more expensive just to get the Apple name & Design. As a PC user I have always wantde a Mac as well, but no way am I paying 2x as much just to get OSX. If I could use VMware or the like to run both at the saem time, then you would have a winner. Thanks but no thanks Mr Jobs, but I get Taxed enough without getting hosed by Apple on the hardware cost. Let me buy OsX at BestBuy for $299 for my PC then you would have a winner!

Report offensive content

Releasing Mac OS X on the PC is absolutely absurd. If you want to use the Macintosh OS buy a Mac.

Report offensive content

Apple has been creeping up from behind and selling a lot of machines. Some markets are already saturated, others (like my environment, the Ivy League) are switching to Macs at an amazing rate. Don't underestimate the draw of computers that are virus-free to a huge segment of the non-hacker population. You may be right that many Windows users will not yet make the switch to Apple hardware, but a lot of corporations are going to start picking up Macs here and there and everywhere because there are a number of good reasons for them to do so.

Report offensive content

virtualisation - a new technology? are you joking, mate? virtual pc has been on the market for years and has offered this technology the whole time

Report offensive content

clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.

Report offensive content

Hate to say it dude, but I have been waiting for this... and I will shell out a few grand to have the best computer and run all applications.

Report offensive content

"Apple gets it wrong"... I am not sure how being able to run both OSX and XP on the same machine is "getting it wrong". Apple would be getting it wrong if they went out of their way to prevent people from running Windows when they wanted. It's such a no brainer.

Report offensive content

errr im a testament to bootcamp i guess, i am now writing on my lovely macbook and wouldn't have purchased a mac unless i could get windows on it. As with my 2 other friends who made the switch. AND now all i use is osx, i only ever boot windows to code in modula2

Report offensive content

Definitely Jobs is thinking about virtualization because dual boot does not work for all the plans possible as mentioned below: Jobs may also be betting on bigger. By providing multi-virtualization on Mac boxes, sell hardware for Windows, OS X and Linux - three-in-one. The penguin is getting friendlier and popular faster. Jobs may also be having another trick in his sleeves - making OS X home-enterainment OS and Windows/Linux the workhorse. Piggybacking on Windows/Linux he may sell both his Hardware and Software in homes. (There are homes out of the US and they don't know Jobs or Apple). Jobs' yet another trick could be to have a killer grid application - and OS X is proven for that. Bottom line: If I could buy stock of VMWare, I would have done by now.

Report offensive content

I'm a Windows XP Pro user, and I'm pretty happy with it. I have to admit being intrigued by some of the cool stuff that OSX has, and when I first heard about Boot Camp I thought that it sounded cool. But after reading this article, if I have to reboot *each time* to access the other OS, than they've already lost me.

Report offensive content

I think you are way off base. I cancelled my PC order and am purchasing an iMac instead. I can see the next version of Apple's OS having the ability to run XP in a window, rather than the dual-boot. This is exactly the kind of thing I was waiting for. I have software that I can't run on a Mac without purchasing a new license, so now I can have my cake and eat it too. Also, there are a lot of apps native to OS X that I can't wait to get my hands on. This is only step one of many more to come, and as far as I'm concerned, you are the one that has it wrong here.

Report offensive content

Of course it will entice me to go Mac using a dual booting system; it could be other than Mac's version of Boot Camp, but the goal will be the same, to have only one computer that can do both. It isn't any secret that a Mac is easier to use, easier to install software and yes, it requires less maintenance.

Report offensive content

I think someone needs to stop submitting microsoft funded stories to the internet. CNET is owned by Microsoft, DUH. This story is called FUD.

Report offensive content

linux has been doing dual boot with Windows since at least 1993, and has had good cheap virtual machine software for several years now. None of this makes any difference to current Windows users. The typical user simply doesn't care what OS (or list of OS's) runs on his machine. The concept of an OS itself is too difficult for the regular user to understand, and so only a small percentage of users will ever care about dual boot or virtual machines.

Report offensive content

'True virtualization' is already one by Parallels Workstation http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/mac/. You can run Windows XP in a virtual pc on your mac and vice versa.

Report offensive content

I own Macs and PC's. IMO the Mac OS is my favorite. I don't need to "switch." But I gotta say, my experience with customer service is always more satisfied with Apple than any other company I can think of. It would be nice if OS X could run on non-Macs (thank you Maxxuss). For the moment I am satisfied with my current hardware, and I don't feel threatened by innovations such as Boot Camp. I don't know very much about Boot Camp. I have questions about it. Can I put other OS's on the list yet or eventually? Red Hat? Ubuntu? I guess I'll find out soon.

Report offensive content

Sorry buddy but you are wrong. I have already had a good few friends comment that they are now willing to take the leap to Apple and have a decent operating system. The truth is the ONLY thing you need Windoze for is gaming. Once people move to Apple at all and see that they can do everything they could under XP and do it much more easily they'll stay for the duration and only pop over to XP for the games.

Report offensive content

This article misses one small price point. The Mac Mini. This machine sells for around $499 USD. Not thousands of dollars, but mere hundreds. As soon as boot camp is available on these lower priced machines, you better believe that Windows users will be considering making the switch. As for Apple licensing their software? Been there done that. Around 15 years (or so) ago, Apple stopped renewing all the manufacturers' license. Why? Quality issues. The design of the machines was not up to par with what Apple could do themselves alone. Of course this has kept them a niche market, but they have beautifully designed hardware, and well tested software. The whole 'machine' just works. I own a Dell running Windows XP Home. It cost me $900. I can't wait to buy an Mac Mini plus a full version of Windows...all for about the same price as my Dell. Move over big, black box...hello my white beauty!

Report offensive content

i love pc users. they always miss the main reason to use a mac is because it is a STABLE operating system where microweenie QXY is a farce of an operating system. viruses, spyware, blah-blah, reinstalls, OH, what fun! get a mac. you will still have a life. owning a PC is like having to regulate your own heart beat.

Report offensive content

* Dual boot is nice, but virtualization is better: Correct. Having to reboot is a pain. I'm sure dual-booting is merely a step on the way to virtualization. Hopefully apple will include a virtual machine with the next version of OSX, but it's more likely that they will sell it as an add-on, or a 3rd party (such as Microsoft VPC) will offer it. * Apple should sell OSX for PCs : Wrong, they make most of their money from hardware sales. This means they can afford to spend time making OSX easier to use instead of dealing with hardware support/antipiracy like MS has to do.

Report offensive content

Another reporter, who thinks they know about Apple, reporting crap.

Report offensive content

It's probably not all bunk, just mostly. People who can pay for Macs aren't worried about the cheap way out If they want to run Windows for a few things, they can buy a cheap box, get a KVM to switch the monitor and grab a wireless keyboard and mouse for their PC. They'd never have to reboot to change operating systems. It would make for a few more gadgets on the desk, but that's what the drawers are for; or in a wild fit of orginazation, they could straighten up their real desktop. If it's someone who already has a powerful Windows machine, well, isn't that what the Mac mini was for? Chess Grogan

Report offensive content

I use Apple because I like its software environment, and I don't need it to be a hardware company. Apple's business model seems to keep it from being a major player — the insistence on being a hardware company led to a huge drop in market share years ago when it experimented with licencing its software and then got cold feet. So licencing it for all computers would make sense to me. Boot camp is just a step because Apple can't bear to make a leap that it will probably have to make.

Report offensive content

Asher Moses has it all wrong. It is the existence of some required (not favorite) application on windows that have kept many of us tied to this foul OS. Now that this monopoly has been broken the two OS's - 3 really because with OSX you get Unix as well- can compete at last in a true competition. Virtualization would of course be even better.

Report offensive content

Virtualisation is great for apps, forget it for games. I do 99% of my development work in virtual images using VMWare. This allows me to keep separate environments for different versions of software. However, while most applications run really well, forget about trying to play games in a virtual environment - the screen drivers aren't up to it yet. I wish I could run OS X in VMWAre as I'd love to see what all the fuss is about. I'm not about to spend £1000 on a Mac though.

Report offensive content

BC only for Mediocresoft people needing to experience a true operating system - don't worry you will get your "virtualization" better than you can hope for in Leopard!

Report offensive content

I completely agree with the author of the article. It will definetly not make me want to switch. Dual-booting is definetly a hassle, although it may have some live left... if Apple were to 'enhance' Bootcamp so that you can just switch from one os to the other via 'hibernation' easily. (one os hibernates, the other comes out of hibernation - with a click of just 'one' button (emphasis on ONE); so that you don't have to go thru the entire boot process everytime... THEN maybe i will really consider this. ~even nicer would be if this would be hardware supported such that the state (stored in it's own RAM area) can be switched quickly in and out of RAM (within a few seconds) --- now THEN i'd be an Apple fanactic!

Report offensive content

Dude, rather than write biased reports, go straighten out your basics. Virtual PC has always been there to run Windown on PowerPC based Macs. And its made by the Microsoft people.

Report offensive content

This is one of the most ridiculous, biased and ill-informed articles I have ever read on a "professional" IT website. "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." - let's read that again - "I doubt it." So basically you've never actually used an Apple computer? Way to give your "article" any credibility whatsoever. Licensing Mac OS to other manufacturers would be one of the stupidest things Apple could possibly do; the whole point of Mac is that it just works. There are no millions of combinations of various kinds of hardware and drivers - everything has been carefully put together to work perfectly, hardware AND software so that the end user never has to think about this. Additionally, where the misconception that an Apple costs "a few grand" came from is beyond me! To build a PC that offers the same performance as its Mac counterpart will almost definitely cost you more, and with worse support and less reliability. The biggest joke about this article, though, is the entire focus that Boot Camp is a failure. Obviously this writer is on the Microsoft payroll, perhaps he's been made an offer he can't refuse?! But anyone who even bothers to just scan Google IT news will know that there was a hack made available to dual-boot XP on a Mac. Apple is simply releasing an "official" version of the tool - let's not forget it is also FREE, a Beta version and completely optional - so that users can EASILY dual-boot with insturctions from Apple if they wish. I don't recall reading anywhere that this was supposed to win over every stubborn, bespectacled computer geek instantly. I also don't recall Microsoft releasing a similar tool for Linux, or for Intel Mac for that matter. Now there's an idea, if Microsoft's OS is as good as they say it is, why didn't THEY release a dual-boot tool for Intel Mac? That way surely they could also gain the Mac userbase? Oh, wait... Some people (including, I suspect, this writer) will always enjoy repairing their computer and running an inferior, buggy and slow OS that has historically attempted to copy the Mac OS, albeit 4 years later - others would like to switch to a computer that just works, but aren't confident or able to ditch Windows entirely. For those people, Boot Camp is an excellent first step towards switching and fulfils it's small role perfectly.

Report offensive content

At my store I have free use of both Mac and PC hardware. After switching from my Toshiba to a new MacBook Pro with BootCamp - I lasted two days before switching back to PC. Basically, BootCamp is for MAC USERS that want OCASSIONAL access to a (limited and clunky) Windows environment. Apple needs do do a lot more fixing before this ap is up to speed. Once again, although Apple puts out excellent products, and is truly a OS that most people could work within - their rush to get product out first just makes the aps/hardware harder to accept. The product is either not supported by software (Intel chip vs. CS2) or the product gets "upgraded" so quickly by Apple that customers are starting to shy away from the first generation version of anything they make. Slow down Apple ... take your time and get it right. Windows users aren't going anywhere.

Report offensive content

Apple gets it right. I am a windows user, have not bought a mac...so far anyway. Apple wants to sell macs...not OSX. OSX is a tool to sell macs, not macs a tool to sell osx. Sell OSX for PCs and not only does the whole support issue open up, you also have a potential war with microsoft. War with microsoft can be tough. If looking at buying a mac, and worried that you just might have an application in future or occasionally that you wish to use which is windows only, then the safety net is an extra assurance. If teetering on the edge of buying a mac as a pc for home use- then allowing boot to windows is just an extra assurance that will make to difference to a number of users. How many? Who knows, but > 0

Report offensive content

Uh, except for 10,000 DRIVERS to write. "I don't see any valid reason why Apple isn't doing this" Except that they would have to write 10,000 drivers so OSX can work on every kind of PC. Just a minor hurdle. Not to mention that the end result would suffer from flaky drivers... just like Windows... Try not to show your ignorance so obviously, sir.

Report offensive content

I have just ordered a MacBook Pro because it can now run Windows XP with all the apps (and games) that do not have OS X counterparts so I can "jump ship" more easily. Get stuck in OS X? Restart and use Windows XP until I work out how to do the same in OS X. Several of my friends are doing the same. Also, using MacDrive, you can access your OS X partition from Windows XP. Sounds like Apple got it right to me!

Report offensive content

Yeah.. I'm going to have to say you're missing something in your research. I know several people who decided to go with apple simply because of boot camp and it's official support for dual booting. What with the gaming benchmarks and the high performance of XP running on apple hardware, I'm certainly looking into it myself. There are desktops that are more expensive than the macbook pro that fail to perform as well.

Report offensive content

I think you're wrong. My 60 year old father is a typical example. Lifetime Windows user (from 3.1 or so), who has begun to write to me about Apple computers, after seeing so much hype about them in the news over the last few years. Most of that hype was iPod related, but then more and more the media began to notice OS X, and so did he (maybe it was his spyware ridden computer that made him look elsewhere). Recently he wrote me about an article on Boot Camp -- he was very excited about it, and said that his "next computer would definitely be an iMac or a Macbook." Now take my dad and multiply it by a few million.

Report offensive content

It makes total sense. Apple is a hardware company and by allowing users the opportunity to keep windows around when they need it is a valuable asset. The Linux world has been doing this for years and having a "fallback" to something familiar has been very helpful in people trying it out. An Apple is a pretty big investment to some, so allowing a user to keep around windows when he/she needs it, is pretty helpful. They aren't going to take over the PC business with it, but it sure doesn't hurt.

Report offensive content

"If Apple wants a significant number of users to sample OS X, Boot Camp just won't cut it. Instead, it's going to have to get off the fence and start selling OS X to PC users, rather than restricting it to the Mac. I don't see any valid reason why Apple isn't doing this," I dunno how you got your job, mate, but it wasn't through deep insight. Explain to me why Apple would undercut its own hardware sales.

Report offensive content

As has been said before (daringfireball.com): Apple would have to sell 5 or more copies of OSX to PC users to make up for the lost hardware sell. Apple sells computers, they make lots of money doing that. Get that into your head.

Report offensive content

I agree that it will enable a lot of MacOSX users to also boot under XP (for games in particular). But i disagree that it won't attract PC users. You forget one of the main point of Apple: Hardware design. I strongly see a lot of PC users buying a mac only for it looks (no PC manufacturer comes even close to iMac design) and install XP on it. you're right, they probably won't run MacOSX often, but apple will boost the sales of its macs. Though, we can imagine that with time, PC users will be curious and use MacOSX more and more. above all that it is just a question of time before all the missing functionalities you're talking about are added.

Report offensive content

Does CNET ever write any informed articles? Move on, nothing to see here.

Report offensive content

Not true. I'm proof. > 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. boxlight

Report offensive content

I'm a die-hard Mac lover(since the Mac II) but have needed to keep my feet in not only the Windows world, but also Linux. I currently have three machines on a KVM switch each running Windows (in Multi-boot for 9x-xp), Mac OS 10.4, and Linux (Mandriva). Given the price difference between a generic PC and a Mac, I agree with the author. Most people aren't clamoring for Windows, they're clamoring for Windows applications--and mostly Windows games. I do disagree that there aren't applications on the Mac to entice you to move over (iLife, Garage Band, MacMail-with one of the best spam filters I've used--,Finale--which runs better on the Mac--, and the Macintosh movie/DVD production software is better than anything I've used on a PC). All this is fine, but I've noted that people take change poorly, especially in regards to their computers. There is still a lot of concern over differences between operating systems and fear of "breaking" the computer. People want comfort. You grow up in a disfunctional family, you intuitively seek out that same dysfuntionality, because it is what you know. This is true in Operating Systems as well. You are used to the problems you have with windows, and they're different than the problems you'll have under Mac OS or even Linux. No OS is perfect. I don't see this affecting many people who are already hard core Windows users. It will be nice for Mac Owners who are interested in PC games though. And Mac Users who want to be compatible with their machines at work. I think it is great, but probably it won't be enough to really change much of anyone's life.

Report offensive content

you are wrong The number of people who want to do work in both OSs is tiny. What's the point to switching OSs to work on the same files? On the other hand the number of people who would like to have one OS for one type of work and another OS for another type of "work" is substantial. The only thing that has held me back from getting a Mac is the PC games I play. Everything else I can do on a Mac. Then the Mac becomes the work machine and I actually *like* restarting and having a totally different OS that is just for gaming. I'm not saying this will work for everyone - but there are more people who will benefit form this type of dual-boot than who want to be able to dual-boot in order to do work from two different OSs.

Report offensive content

Have you ever used a WinXP machine? that should be enough for you to understand why people want to switch to OSX. Besides, Windows (through boot camp) is to entice people that they don't have to lose their games or exclusive apps but they can still switch to a superior OS

Report offensive content

Asher Moses: Cretin 1st class. Boot camp will clearly usher over a new segment of switchers to OS X: those who previous to its release would have liked to move to OS X but were prevented by needing to run a small number of windows applications. Now they have the option to switch and still be able to use those applications. The two facets of the issue that Numpty Moses misses are these: First; Boot Camp is a product that caters for people who would want to use it: this predicates that the market is for PEOPLE WHO WANT TO RUN OS X. People who would rather stick with their current windows PC and "not bother with OS X" are obviously not the target for this product. Second: What was the VERY FIRST THING people tried to get Intel based Macs to do? Was it, perchance, to dual boot windows? Why yes: it was. There's your demand for Boot Camp, numb nuts.

Report offensive content

Well, lets give you the benefit of the doubt, bootcamp has no effectibility on pc users because its souly not enough to make them want to switch. In your arguement, you stated that users would like to stick with games, hardcore gamers are always wanting the fastest hardware to make their games look crystal clear, the MBP is the top of the line fastest hardware any pc/mac notebook has seen, and with the ability to load windows these users can play their favorite games. Furthermore, apple offers creative software that is not seen bundled with a discount or even for free for that matter in an xp installation. When you get a new pc it has all this crappy bundled software most of which is spyware. I believe windows users will switch if they are given the time to get used to and feel around os x. So to you my rival i say you are debunked.

Report offensive content

So, Apple created Boot Camp in order to inspire more PC users to switch, eh? Perhaps I'm a bit naive here, but I believe Apple when they said that Boot Camp was mostly meant to answer the call of Mac users to use some apps (specifically games) that only run on XP. I administer both types of systems, but I had to go to PCs to play some of the best and most popular games out there. Oh, I almost forgot to insult many of the CNET lackies for general FUD dissemination, ridiculous conclusions, under-researched topics, and general kowtowing to their sponsors. Cheers.

Report offensive content

It is all a matter of perspective. I want Windows! => Over priced PC I want Mac OS X! => Added bonus, I can play DDO now I want Mac OS X and Windows => No longer need to buy 2 machines. In fact, Mac OS X is now cheaper. So if you're a Windows fanatic, this makes no sense to you. If however you've been wanting a Mac, but the cost of owning 2 machines to do all the things you wanted held you back, then Apple just made it cheaper for you to move to Apple, in fact, you can now forget Dell exists. If you're an Apple fanatic, you just got frosting on your cake. So it is a win for Apple. Not a carrot to convert the budget Windows person that doesn't mind putting up with the inconviences of it.

Report offensive content

PLEASE REPORT FACT, NOT OPINION... I am mirroring SHAGGS comments, (which i totally agree with) Mr Moses seems to have missed the point on many levels, not to mention the dubious opinion he has...laughable, I wonder what Mac he used to test Boot Camp out? Lets not forget, this piece of software is free and not compulsary! Quite frankly, as a mac and pc user, short of a few games Microsoft can keep windows, and I will stick with OSX...

Report offensive content

I'm pricing Macs as we speak only because of Boot Camp. In my opinion, as a graphics professional, Apple has long boasted better hardware, anyway. To me, this is the best of both worlds! I can't think of a reason to buy a PC at this point. I'm so stoked, I can't even begin to explain it.

Report offensive content

I am sure one of those guys who admire Mac OS X but gets very reluctant to switch to Mac as I afraid to lose every convenience I have for Windows regarding the wide availability of software (freeware, shareware and paid software alike). Boot Camp has certainly provide me a safety net where I know I have Windows to fall back all. For a week or two I repeatedly search for MacBook Pro information from the Internet. I will certainly buy one but I want to see what type of MacBook else it will be offered.

Report offensive content

You write: "I don't see any valid reason why Apple isn't doing this, as it would dramatically increase its revenue and market penetration." You could not be more biased or have thought less because there are very valid reasons for doing this. OS X is created to run on very few individual hardware types. Windows, on the other hand, has the massive task of needing to run on every kind of PC the market can chuck out. That's in part why Apple is able to update its OS on a frequency 4-5 times more than Windows. To successfully release OS X into the market at large, you'd need to build in support for much more hardware. The result: the OS would become bloated and updates would be fewer. In other words, it'd become Windows and lose most of its advantages.

Report offensive content

To me, it doesn't make sense when you mention that "folks are not clamouring for Windows; they're clamouring to run Windows applications." And then mention that to most users, the operating system is simply a means to an end so they can run their favourite applications and then for some reason you conclude that the real potential lies in allowing Windows XP to be run inside Mac OS X. Huh? Wouldn't it be better to conclude that there should be a way to run Windows apps "without" Windows XP instead? Like, have a WINE-like environment like the much rumored "Red Box" that Rhapsody had in its design years ago (that didn't make it in the final Mac OS X, btw). Having both types of program running side-by-side would make MS and Dell soil their pants. Imagine that you're in charge of school district purchasing. Would you buy a computer that can run Mac and Windows programs (and X Windows, too) or just Windows programs?

Report offensive content

At the margin, this does not harm Apple. There will be those who are sitting onthe fence if they should buy a DELL or an Apple computer. If they are very price sensitive, it is a no brainer. If they are less, then good for Apple as like for like comparison yields a value for money Apple machine. Just like a 3 series BMW that yields ssay 180 bhp. One can get that same horse power from other car makers at a much lower price but for those who value other features - aesthetic, feel, snob, brand etc., there is a choice. Apple makes its money from hardware, not so much software so they are selling the hardware and between a DELL and a quiet, flat screen with no separate CPU, flushed, video camera, etc. well, there will be incremental takers.

Report offensive content

I don't think you get the point at all. Windows sucks... that's the point. People would switch because they can hang on to the odd XP app that they 'need' to run. OS X as a whole (no viruses, stable, Mail, iLife, superior hardware etc) is the reason to switch. The ability to migrate and run the occasional XP session is the tipping point. Any one who start to use OS X on a regular basis will start using XP less and less.

Report offensive content

Your full of crap, I plan to buy a new mac just because of bootcamp. That could possibly lead me to using mac os x.

Report offensive content

Oh yeah, the strategy of going head-to-head with Windows worked SO well for OS/2. And the strategy of letting cheap box-makers license the Mac OS worked SO well in the 1990s. By all means, Apple, let's ignore the past and make all the same mistakes again!

Report offensive content

1. I dont use Windows (any version). I dont touch MS software with a ten foot pole. I have no interest in running any MS software on any hardware. 2. I dont have any Mac hardware - too dang expensive 3. I would be very interested in the ability to run OSX on commodity x86 hardware

Report offensive content

I agree, VMWare where are you? Windows is attacking your market, why not strike back at the Empire? or Dear Steve Jobs, Charge what you will for OSX for PCs. People will still by your cool products. Why? because Mac's have that cool factor and to even get a PC/Laptop to perform like a (PowerBook/PowerMac/Mac Mini/Or Whatever is next) someone is going to have to get a very expensive vid card to even come close. Look at how well your IPod's did when you let the people with "Dull Little Boxes" play with them. Mr. Jobs as a fan please don't make the same mistake twice. Open up and sell OSX before the Linux groups get united behind one Desktop and take the market away from you and the MS Kool-Aid Gang.

Report offensive content

My next computer will be a mac, thanks to boot camp. I have to use xp for some applications, but love the mac for it's clean design and interface. My wife has always wanted a mac but it was not an option. Now we can get one.

Report offensive content

I'm having IBM OS/2 Dejavu.

Report offensive content

Apple will probably never start selling OSX on non Apple machines. Why? Simple, Apple does not make a huge profit off of their OS unlike Windows, cost ~$300, OSC costs just over $100. Is that because they have less people working on it; probably. But where Apple really gets their income is from hardware. So why would they not want people to buy their hardware to use their system?

Report offensive content

Certainly, it opens up options to home users as to really having a choice between the OS flavors they prefer, but frankly there is little that one can do on either platform that differs dramatically from what can do on the other. Unless a user is immediately ready to purchase a new PC, there is not a lot of incentive to dump the machine you paid a grand for a year ago to pick up a mac (even a mini) and a new copy of XP just to give this a go. From what I have seen after some 17 years in the industry, is that most home users simply don't have enough demands to warrant the process. Gamers will never switch, because of the ability to overclock and upgrade PC platforms easily to take advantage of newer and faster hardware to candy up the games for them, so this eliminates a good deal of the market as well. What remains is a small group of fairly open minded souls who might want to try this as an expiroment. Those of us in the industry and with a passion for technology often forget that we are the few who feel a loyalty to a certain breed of OS, and most of the world who really buy and use a computer really could care less what OS they use, as long as they can get email, print photos, watch movies, and download music, they are happy. As for the virus comments on some feedbacks, it has been regularly stated by many respected sources that Mac users often have an ill warrented feeling of security because of the belief that Mac's don't get viruses. In reality, the more Mac's that start showing up out there, the larger the target, the more virii will start to appear targeting that OS. There is something to be said about being too small a target to show up on radar. And getting back to the original title, Apple has openly said this is just a beta, and that they plan to install a full version of Boot Camp into the next incarnation of OSX, and they have also offered true virtualization. When they do that, hopefully they will have enough sight to include interpreters for the NTFS or Fat 32 file system to read the Apple file system, and vice versa. If they fail to add this, then they have missed the boat. Lastly, this whole conversation feels disturbingly familliar to one I had with a colleuge years ago about OS/2's ability to virtualize a 16 bit Windows 3.x emulation, it did work for some things, but it failed horribly in others. Rather than worrying about our spiritual loyalty to whichever OS we prefer at the moment, perhaps we should take a look back at the past and wonder, is this really going to be that big a deal? I don't think so, outside of the passionate tech-heads like myself and the group that has already responded to this article, I don't think the public as a whole really cares that much.

Report offensive content

If Apple were to license OSX to any and all comers, it would likely become a bloated mess like Windows. Licensing to a smaller cabal on standardized hardware manufacturers won't accomplish much either, since hardware prices won't be much lower, selection won't be meaningfully larger, and the end result (as in the 1990s) will be to cannibalize Apple's own sales. Controlling both the software and hardware is one of the reasons Apple is able to so rapidly and efficiently develop OSX, a key pillar of its ability to compete. Virtualization obviously presents many benefits, but will also probably be somewhat expensive, will arrive who knows when, and might not perform as well as rebooting. BootCamp is free, and is available now, and runs Windows at full speed. My interpretation of BootCamp in a short- to medium-term view is two-fold. First, it keeps the Mac-faithful from further straying out of temptation or necessity. Second, it provides the opportunity for people to buy Apple hardware to *run Windows primarily*, and just happens to toss in a free copy of OSX and the iLife software suite to whet their appetite and pique their interest. All those people who go to an Apple store to buy an iPod can now look at all those lovely Apple computers and be told they run Windows just dandy. Buying an Apple computer will be seen as the ultimate iPod accessory. With a 25% profit margin on middle- and top-end machines, the brilliance of BootCamp is that these Windows shoppers will be subsidizing further improvements to OSX whether they use it or not. As a long-time Mac user, this is not only amusing, it is almost poetic. BootCamp isn't a move to sell OSX -- its a move to sell more hardware. Silly columnists.

Report offensive content

Wow, as a writer you should be ashamed for writing this. You obviously haven't put much thought into it. I'll just make one comment: the reason why Apple doesn't release Mac OS X for the PC platform is because of control. By losing a hold on the hardware, Apple exposes itself to all kinds of support and technical problems that are associated with configuring an OS with dozens of hardware manufacturers and an infinite number of configurations. Simple as that.

Report offensive content

Innovation . . . with a safety-net. Most people would buy an Apple if it didn't mean that they could never use the hardware for anything other than Mac OS X. But, I am betting that once the XP users start using Mac OS X they won't want to use XP. I know that the only reason I was waiting was because they were switching to Intel chips. I wanted to wait until they got the bugs worked out. OS X is unix. So, I am right at home. Standardized best of breed hardware is supportable. The OS doesn't need a ton of extra stuff if you are using Apple hardware. So, I don't think Apple is going to build Mac OS X or anything else for any other hardware. If anything, they will tighten the specs. Think of XP or Linux without all the crap required for standardized driver interfaces and registries. Lean, mean and fast is what I see!! Sun got it right when they picked and supported only a small set of standardized hardware. Apple is just following suit. As for virtualization, it is just an extension of a good operating system. Solaris can do it. Linux can do it. Heck, even MS can do it. So, this is the future. But, do I care today . . . nope!!! And, neither does anyone else. Running Windows in a window seems cool. But, how about not running Windows at all . . . except as a terminal services or Citrix session. Windows is just one big trojan horse. The sooner we rid the world of Windows desktop OS licenses, the better off we will all be.

Report offensive content

I couldn't possibly disagree more with Mr. Moses' analysis of the Boot Camp release, and his failure to note the obvious benefits of it's use. My strongest rebuttles, however, may have more to do with his ignorance of the pure performance benefits OSX users have the benefit of experiencing (do largely to the fact that Apple will not license the OSX operating system to the likes of Dell, etc.). I currently work in a Multi-Media field, where I dizzy myself flipping between a Toshiba Lecra laptop, running Windows XP Professional, and my powerhouse G5 workstation, running OSX. Boot Camp not only appears to be an obvious future installation in our current environment, but one that will, to some extent, reduce the number of "Windows-Only" machines we require. In our industry, all things Apple are an improvement. From graphical file browsing superiority (ask any Photoshop user which OS is more practical to flip through images with) to the mere fact that the Apple hardware is as robust and problem-free as they come, Apple systems are much more satisfactory for performing daily tasks and processes. The Apple hardware advantage is the goldmine that Steve Jobs and Co. are farming, with it's problem-free, config.-free, and trouble-free performance vastly superior to any Windows system. When PC users are offered the chance to utilize these hardware benefits to run Windows on such a stable hardware platform, how can they lose? This is creating the ability to partake in Apple's outstanding product design, a large element of the iPod's success, to run their daily copmuterized tasks. We have three situations in-house where we work between two computers to gain access to the features of both systems. Not a single game resides on the list of benefits of running Windows on the Apple hardware. We utilize the Windows OS for it's superior network connectivity and mating with the Novell client and various web servers. Along with connecting to AS400 programming and various query applications, the DB fluence with the Windows OS is our primary interest. With that in mind, the ability to switch between the two is nearly priceless! Rebooting isn't as significant as it would seem, and for the cost of a seperate Windows computer, is very tolerble. As far as the inability to reach files on one system from another, simple network connections clear the concern completely, which many officeplace scenerios utilize already. If any Apple fan were to hear that the OSX OS would be distrubted to makers of lesser-quality hardware, the separation would dissolve to simply a user interface change. While Apple's is significantly better, it's a laugh to make it the only benefit of an Apple system. We are welcoming the addition of Boot Camp, and the departure of at least three unnecesarry computer leases per year!

Report offensive content

I'm a researcher in Germany, and bc of bootcamp, when we replace 40 laptops this year, they will likely be macbooks. Other institutes are expressing similar leanings. Can I get a job with CNET Australia if I also make patently absurd statements? If the editors would permit me, I'd like to use the rest of this post as an audition. Ahem. "Debian will purchase Dell to get people to switch from Windows to Linux." No? What about... "Apple will abandon the ipod and personal computer to focus on better earphones." Still contains words and recognizable information?... ok. "Apache will serve jam on toast instead of web pages to force more people to wear new hats"? I always wanted to be a "journalist"

Report offensive content

NEWSFLASH! CNET "Journalist" starts writing opinions instead of facts. Industry stops taking journalist seriously. I trust the Optus broadband monkey more.

Report offensive content

Ugh. Some tech columnist. Do you even know what the word "beta" means? Like, um, NOT FINISHED? Perhaps even "Proof-of-concept" maybe? Like, when it is rolled into Leopard it will most likely be radically different? Are you familiar with the tech industry at all?

Report offensive content

you are kidding aren't you hmm... bit late for April Fools Day so you must be serious. If I was the editor of CNet, you would be gone. Come back when you've got a clue mate...

Report offensive content

I can't even imagine the performance issues surrounding playing a Windows-based game in a virtualized environment. Any modern graphics-intensive game would simply choke.

Report offensive content

Maybe the author should check out some online cross-platform discussion forums before spouting off, and he'd see that he is dead wrong. I've seen a lot of interest in Apple products from PC users now that they can boot Windows, and several of those interested have already stated that they'd ordered either a Mac mini or MacBook Pro. Also, the majority understand that simply booting Windows XP is the first step toward total virtualization, which is more than I can say for this author.

Report offensive content

People are missing the point on the "virtualization". It doesn't help that the author either chose not to give the facts, or simply doesn't understand them. There is a subtle difference between virtualization a year ago and virtualization today. Today, Intel is putting the virtualization logic on their chips, thereby allowing the hosted OS to talk directly to the hardware. It is this technology that makes virtualization a good, long terms solution to the multi-os issue. Without it, virtualization is really too slow for most people. VMWARE is great as are other applications, but it's the hardware optimization that makes the technology truly viable. If you haven't checked out Parallels.com, I encourage you to do so. It's very nice and extremely fast. On a separate note - wow am I sick of people trying steer Apple's ship for them. I too would like to see a broad release of OS X that would run on a commodity PC. However, rolling all this out at once because is appealing does not equate to a good business decision. Apple's stock isn't performing too poorly - the shareholders are happy. The geeks get happy incramentally -it's okay. Plus, it gives us stuff to talk about. I am a little confused as to why Apple seems to consider itself more of a hardware company than a software company though. iPods, iMacs, iBooks, PowerBooks, PowerMacs, MacBookPro... all great stuff, but really OS X is vastly superior to Windows in many ways. (not bashing Windows, I use both). If Apple really does think the future for them is in hardware, and you're willing to concede that OS X is pretty darn good - then it makes sense to use the OS to sell the hardware. At the same time, you can run Windows and use the hardware to sell the hardware. So, from a computer hardware company's perspective, the last thing they want to do is provide an excellent OS and great accompanying applications to run on someone else's box. Going to ramble a bit more.... you know what Nirvana is to me? Here goes: 1. $399 for OS X to run on a Dell - giving Apple the margin they make on Hardware. 2. $100 to Microsoft for a Mac OS X compatible .NET framework and CLR so that Windows Applications can run on OS X - thereby allowing MS to keep (improve?) their OS margin. Thanks for listening. I rule.

Report offensive content

> 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. Yes, it does. The application is called OS X.

Report offensive content

Recently i was shopping for a new laptop. I eventually baught a Sony Windows based laptop. Now if Apple released there bombshell news about running Windows on Apple i would have definitly baught an Apple system... As for whether Apple should have there OS running on a Windows based system, i beleive that it would be alot beneficial for them as they are letting there users use a Windows OS. I must say that Apple are showing a weekness by not providing this service. KJ

Report offensive content

What do you know, a long list of apple fanatics throwing tantrums. Dual boot or no, I would get a mac if they were not so expensive.

Report offensive content

Wow. Talk about spouting opinion without even getting facts first! Does this writer have a clue about performance? Did he even bother to compare the computers, options, processor speeds OR prices? A Mac Mini, which sells for $700 US, has the same processor equivalent speed of a Pentium 4 4.4 GHz, which doesn't even exist! How is this 2x or 3x the price of competitors? The iMacs sell for $1,200 and $1700 for integrated, all in one performance with fantastic graphics, speed, and the total package. On a lark, I checked Dell's site. They're still shipping machines with Celeron D processors. Good Lord. Is it any wonder their stock is HALF the price of Apple's? Do the research. Check it out. You'll not be coming back to this article again. http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

Report offensive content

What are you talking about? Can your PC at home dual boot Mac OS X? Sure it's kind of a pain to switch back and forth between Windows and Mac OS but that's still leeps and bounds over what any traditional PC can do. And another point here, Apple isn't trying to get people to run PC software on a Mac, they want them to use the Macintosh software as originally intended. This solution just gives users an extra option to run software that they otherwise couldn't.

Report offensive content

This is probably the worst "professional" editorial I've ever read. "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." What does that mean? You've never used a Mac? You're not really sure if there are...but...prolly not. And do you have any idea how much harder it is to make an OS that runs on hardware from many different vendors? Apple isn't going to make any money from selling their OS as a standalone, and their hardware sales would drop dramatically as well. I'm not saying that all the PC users are going to switch to Mac, but more that this editorial really employs no educated thought. It seems more like an advertisement for Parallels. Saving someone the 45 seconds it takes to boot into a different operating system will not be Apple's saving grace and would not have nearly the impact on sales that Boot Camp did. It would just be a convenience.

Report offensive content

Rolleyes.

Report offensive content

OS X doesn't hold much attraction for me. The Mac Mini does, on the other hand. Now that XP can run on one, I'm more likely to buy it. I'll then probably play with the Mac side, and learn more about it that way. So I think that Apple got it right. BTW, I've heard that Keynote is a good presentation software. Something that can't be said about Powerpoint.

Report offensive content

VMWare used to make a port of it's amazing virtualization software for FreeBSD, so why can't it do the same for OSX? I would think VMWare would now take the opportunity to develop a port of VMWare Workstation for the OSX user, considering the MAC is now an Intel platform. -Rory A. Savage

Report offensive content

Microsoft pay your wages, so I guess an article like this from you is only to be expected. You are way off on this one, I know 3 people who have ordered Macs now they can boot XP. They needed certain specialist packages on the PC (although theres hardly anything you can't get for Mac these days) So now they will use OSX for day to day and just boot XP for their one application.

Report offensive content

I think you completely missed the point. Apple controls the whole picture, hardware and software, this gives their users a consistent experience. Running windows on the mac is a way to "get by" for those pesky applications that you can't run on the mac. I doubt you'll see many people running Windows only on their Mac, that's not the point.

Report offensive content

I was pretty excited about this until i read that I can only do it on the Intel systems. I would love to dual boot my iBook 1.44 with Windows and OSX. All of my music recording software is on my OSX installations and all of my games are on another PC system. I'm not about to pay 2 g's on a macbook pro or a iMac to have this done when i could just buy a completely decked out PC for under half the price.

Report offensive content

I agree with the basic premise of the article. I don't think Apple intends BootCamp to be a way to get more switchers. I think the real reason for boot camp is that people were working on "hacked" methods to get Windows to run on the Mac - just of the Gee Wiz factor. In doing so, people end up hacking around with the firmware on their Mac. And in doing that, they will often end up with a machine that won't boot. Then, the machine gets returned. Under warranty. By creating BootCamp, Apple has a way to take some of the wind out of the sails driving people to screw up their machines and in doing so saves a ton of money on returned units. That's my thinking on the "real" purpose of Boot Camp.

Report offensive content

you should attempt to get more up to date with what is happening in the world of mac/wintel virtualization...start here and then come back and write your article... http://www.parallels.com/

Report offensive content

I don't know where your coming from. The important thing to remember is that this new technology is primarily for people that mostly use one system but may need to use the other on occassion, this saves them having to get 2 computers to do this. Also you neglect to recognize the obvious flaw with any virtualism technology...running two OS's at once means everything runs REALLY SLOW! (Ever tried Virtual PC). I own both one of the new MacMini Intel's (1.5 Core Solo) and a PC (2.8 Ghz P4), the new MacMini not only runs OS X and XP flawlessly but is far faster running XP then my 2.8 Ghz P4! I love bootcamp and am happy I can now go back to only having one computer!

Report offensive content

Anyone who uses this as justifaction to buy a Mac is building a bridge on a base of clouds. The author is aboslutely right in pointing out that this is a broken implementation that doesn't solve what mac users want -- access to windows applications. In 5 years at technology based jobs I have never had an app I lusted after that only ran on Mac. The superior software is written for the superior userbase, whether you like the OS or not, which the author correctly pointed out. When Mac OS X can run windows apps, or I can put it on my existing machine -- which destroys Macs for gaming, which is what I do when I'm not at the office -- then I might actually **** an eyebrow and care.

Report offensive content

Come take a listen to our Mac ReviewCast (#49) for this week at http://www.surfbits.com We put both Boot Camp and Parallel Workstation 2.1 into proper perspective, because we work daily in both environments. We aren't going to go out and buy Mactels for a while, because we just got done getting iMac G5s with the IBM chips instead. Meanwhile, apps that are Windows-centric can now run "natively" on Mactels whether in dual-boot or virtualized. We think Virtual is better. But then again, we've been suffering with VPC for a few years now. Seeing how well some Windows-only apps work on a MacBook Pro with Boot Camp is very exciting!

Report offensive content

Releasing OSX on generic PCs is the worst idea possible. Sure, their revenue will soar in the short run, but in the long run they will have a lot more hardware to support, namely the entire PC market. It will cause OSX to be bloated, unstable, and overall just as bad as Windows currently is. It will add tons of overhead just to support that hardware, and at the end will sacrifice the overall quality of the product. The fact that Apple only supports a short list of hardware (compared to the millions that windows has to support) is what gives OSX the advantage. No one is going to buy a Mac JUST to run Windows, that would be ridiculous. I think it's great that Microsoft "standardized" the PC market decades ago with Windows, but over time, the quality of their products have degraded because there's so much crap to support. Not everything is about money anymore. Apple is doing the right thing as far as I'm concerned. Like Intel now, Apple is selling a complete platform, not just an OS.

Report offensive content

Apple got it all right. Apple realises that there are many people out there who love macs, but are forced to use PC's at work. This will allow those poor souls to buy one computer, and be able to run both what they need to run for work, and what they want to run for fun. Many people had put off buying a mac because they needed the money to buy a laptop for work, this is the solution to their problems.

Report offensive content

I have the ultimate solution; Two seperate OS' on two seperate machines. Voila!

Report offensive content

I think this article is right on. No way am I going to pony up the dough and buy a PC that I didn't build with my own two hands. Especially a piece of crap like a mac. Mac users need to realize that it is not Microsoft's fault that virus designers and spyware goons choose to attack the only operating system that has widespread use(Windows). Once Apple releases its cold grip on its hardware is when I might consider having a mac in my house.

Report offensive content

I don't care about Windows nor Boot Camp. I'd rather prefer being able to buy MacOSX formy PCinstead of investing insane amounts of money in any Apple machine. What was possible with both NEXTSTEP and OPENSTEP should be far easier nowadays with its successor.

Report offensive content

The chances of Apple allowing OS X to run on non-Apple machines is next to nil for the foreseeable future. The reason for this is simple: Apple is in the business of selling hardware. The last time they allowed other companies to sell machines with MacOS X was in the mid-1990s and it almost drove them out of business because, even though Apple still had better than average industrial design, more people were concerned with the price of their computer. And while the "premium" for owning a new Mac (at least in the US) has dropped to less than $100 in most cases (for equivalently equipped machines), not enough new people switched to Macs to make up for the loss of profit. For a detailed discussion of this, you should look at this weblog - http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas . But consider this: there is a sub-set of Windows users that want to switch to Macs for some reason (better design/coolness factor, lower risk of virus infection, access to Apple software like Aperture) but have not because their work requires them to regularly use some Windows-only application (say 1 to 3 times a week) and they can't afford (in terms of money, portability, or desk real estate) two computers. These users, and I know a fair number of them, will now have the opportunity to switch to Apple hardware. And here's another one: educational institutions no longer have to buy 30 Macs and 30 PCs to have full labs running both Operating Systems, they can simply buy 40 Macs with 40 Windows licenses (or use an existing site license) and allow the lab users to switch to the operating system of their choice. I agree with you that virtualization is the holy grail of this use case, and if you notice Apple has explicitly stated there could be a name change when Boot Camp is released with their next major OS upgrade later this year. I have no idea what may change between now and then, but the functionality in Boot Camp is the start of what needs to be in place to enable virtualization. Its probably the easiest of the steps towards virtualization, and if it lets a few people switch before virtualization is available, or if it lets Apple win a few big education contracts this summer, all the better for them.

Report offensive content

One problem with this analysis is that you assume that an XP user would never spend the thousands of dollars to switch to a mac. Yet, in so far as there are any mac users at all, this switch does of course occur. If your argument were sound, it would make it a mystery why anyone ever switches to macs, bootcamp or not. You say that there aren't any compelling software reasons to do so, but clearly many people feel that the iLife suite and OS X are compelling reasons. The apple strategy with boot camp is directed towards the customer who understands that the apple software package is superior, the industrial design is nice, and the cost of ownership is competitive, yet who is reluctant to switch because of lingering compatibility worries. What apple has done is remove those lingering worries.

Report offensive content

I have been looking for a really small computer to set up some info displays that are attached to the wall. I needed something small enough to mount behind the monitor on the wall so that you cannot see it. I thought the Mac Mini would be perfect except we are a Windows shop. This would make doing what I want possible. I can also see this as a good way to set up a lot of small computers in a lab environment or a call center. Apple makes good hardware that is now available for more uses. I don't think it will do a thing to make Mac users convert to Windows or vice-versa. Mac is a religion anyway while windows is just to get work done.

Report offensive content

I have been looking for a really small computer to set up some info displays that are attached to the wall. I needed something small enough to mount behind the monitor on the wall so that you cannot see it. I thought the Mac Mini would be perfect except we are a Windows shop. This would make doing what I want possible. I can also see this as a good way to set up a lot of small computers in a lab environment or a call center. Apple makes good hardware that is now available for more uses. I don't think it will do a thing to make Mac users convert to Windows or vice-versa. Mac is a religion anyway while windows is just to get work done.

Report offensive content

This article is silly. Sure, virtualization is nice and is somewhat available (or so I hear) in some 3rd party software, but virtualization wasn't the objective!? And why would the author assume that Apple was looking to give Windows users a chance to "sample" OSX? Talk about missing the point TOTALLY! Boot camp targets the folks who have already decided to use a Mac, and prefer OS X, but have some sort of legacy constraint to Windows. I had this problem last year when selecting a laptop for my daughter. She wanted a mac, but her favorite games were Windows-only. Boot camp would have been perfect for her and virtualization would not have been viable due to performance requirements. Some employers have mandatory software that runs on Windows-only, this allows an environment for that. I think boot camp is a winner, and I think it is ignorant to imply that it is a miss simply because virtualization functions aren't built into it (yet).

Report offensive content

I've only had one Apple computer, a G3 iBook. It was perfect for me, and it's mediocre power never made me lust for gaming on it. Sure, Starcraft etc. that had Mac versions were fun for long trips, but I mainly did my gaming on my PC. I'll be up for a new desktop now, and Boot Camp will enable me to use Mac OS X which I love, and still play Windows games. I really prefer dual-booting over virtualization, because I'm a performancefreak. Now that the only thing that's kept me from moving to Apple, the lack of gaming, has been removed, I'm prepared to do "The Switch".

Report offensive content

Boot Camp saves the day Boot Camp is a direct response to user demand, heck a home brew version of boot camp was worth 13 grand! Many users who have had some dealings with Linux and OS X love all the features offered but are basically backed into a corner and are forced to choose between a good OS and good programs/games. Boot Camp fills the void of those users who love Mac but have only been able to do so from afar. Boot Camp is actually extremely similar to what Linux users have been doing for years, having their PC run both Linux and Windows. Almost every Linux user will admit at one point or another a game or program comes along that only runs on windows that they really want to use. What are they to do besides dual boot? Virtualization sounds great but the performance just isn’t there. Ever try running Doom 3 in a vm on a Linux or OS X box? It ain’t pretty. Boot Camp offers that long desired ability for Mac users who long for windows games and windows users who long for a good OS. Windows users who are frustrated by hardware and their OS now have an alternative besides Linux. And remember when it comes down to it Apple hardware is beautiful; finally having a beautiful computer that can run windows is a pleasant change. Angelfury

Report offensive content

Just FUD for hits, normally I would say its the typical M$OFT bias but in this case Apple is *helping* Microsoft by providing what will most likely be a very stable platform from which to run winders; futhermore if done legally it provides M$OFT with the procedes from a retail license sale, they get very little from Dell per seat as its all rolled into the package but to do this you must provide a valid copy and license it accordingly; This article is just a player haters ball.......

Report offensive content

You miss one critical detail, Apple also sells the machines, not just the OS. If the machine is capable of running Windows as well as Mac OSX, more people will buy it. This is common sense, and it renders your argument useless.

Report offensive content

I cannot imagine any typical Windows user being swayed to shell out the extra cash for an Intel Mac, a machine that only supports Windows through a rather ugly hack. Apple won't sell OSX for generic PC hardware, because then droves of OSX users would stop buying overpriced Apple hardware. Microsoft has invested in Apple, and I suspect Bootcamp is one way in which Apple is helping Microsoft sell more Windows licenses, probably part of the behind the scenes arm-twisting that Bill Gates and co applied to Steve Jobs and co when they bailed them out with the last cash infusion. -Gnobuddy

Report offensive content

Isuicide? Why does Apple continue to destroy their own marketshare? Now they are the producers of a line of moderate spec Intel PC's with a userfriendly opperating system built on top of a crippled unix based system. Why is it that every time Apple has a chance to blow us away they take the other route? Rather than building up their unix os, pricing their hardware reasonable and blowing MS out of the water they have instead essentially given up on their own operating system. This will not mean a rise in experementation with OSX but rather simply a large number of WinMacs.

Report offensive content