While I understand the thought process, I think it is still too early to see Apple's true strategy with this move. With the release of Leopard things will become much more clear. My bet is that with Leopard Boot Camp will utilize virtualization to run alongside OS X.

As far as software is concerned I'm betting on Apple porting XCode and Cocoa to Windows to make the premeir truelly cross platform development enviornment. Many companies would love to be able to write applications once and have it run on any OS. I see Apple enabling this and until this happens Microsoft will maintain it's OS dominance.

Instead of boosting apple's market share, buy a dell for your windows software in order to keep OS X development alive. I think I've read some better predictions than this one.

http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/windows_the_new_classic

Quote

Guest wrote:
Instead of boosting apple's market share, buy a dell for your windows software in order to keep OS X development alive. I think I've read some better predictions than this one.

http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/windows_the_new_classic

Daring Fireball is right on the money.

Mr. Stern, on the other hand, is being totally insane. Let me get this straight...if I run Windows and OS X at home on TWO different machines that's ok, but if I run Windows and OS X at home on ONE machine that's bad?

Can ANYONE explain that to me? What's the difference!? Well, I save money by not giving any to Dell. That's one difference. Other than that...hmmm...I can't think of any.


EDIT: Oh! I thought of one more! I don't have to buy a KVM switch like I do now.

THINK SAME

I doubt Apple would create (or buy) virtualization of Windows into the OS. As soon as they did that, companies would lose interest in creating for the Apple platform and just write for Windows.

Although it is correct that we don't know what Apple may have in its skunk works, I think Apple just created this so that they can get a few people over to the platform who are afraid (for good reason) to switch cold to OS X.

If users could have both, there are those who will now buy and not fear a loss in investment if they find out that OS X doesn't work for them.

We have to remember that Windows does have everything a user would want. The only compelling reason to switch is wanting Apple hardware. Many users have to survive in a Windows world and use Virtual PC (or other product) to get their Windows work done on their Macs. They can't survive without specific Windows software because it simply does not exist for OS X (yet?)

My stepson likes Windows software. He doesn't like Windows so much. He has a PC and loves Apple hardware. He says it is beautiful. But he does have his Windows software that he simply can't be without, like software for chatting to friends in China. China is 99.99999 Windows and there is specific software that he can't live without. (Well, he could almost or could if he made a compromise on his QQ communications software, but then there are the games...)

When I told my stepson about Boot Camp, he was pretty excited. He's interested in an iBook if it will run Bootcamp. He can live in both worlds. And then, maybe, he'll make some compromises (in lack of software) and just make the plunge.

It was hard for me to switch to OS X. It was funky compared to OS 9. And there was a bunch of software that was OS 9 only and didn't run too well in the virtual environment of OS 9 on OS X. It was funky and I didn't like it.

When Jaguar came out, I moved to OS X and lived with OS 9 when I needed it. When Panther arrived, I parted ways with OS 9 and its software. I lost a bunch of software, but eventually found something along the lines of replacements in OS X.

Now I dislike OS 9 and won't work with it. However, there are advantages. Take for instance the software that comes with Epson all-in-one scanners. Works great in OS 9. But but the OS X sofware never worked well. So I gave up all that software. I can't even scan anymore in OS X Tiger. And Epson isn't updating the software. I had an iBook with Panther just for scanning, but I've moved away from that.

Yes, I could buy scanning software, but I gave up all that other software that came with OS 9 and worked great.

So, yes, this Boot Camp will be for Windows users what it was like for OS 9 people moving to OS X. It's hard to make a cold jump.

And it is inconvenient enough to reboot into either OS, but convenient enough to have both and live in both worlds. This Boot Camp will be for those people.

And just the idea of Boot Camp - a lot of people on the fence will make the plunge. They have nothing to lose.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I doubt Apple would create (or buy) virtualization of Windows into the OS. As soon as they did that, companies would lose interest in creating for the Apple platform and just write for Windows.

As the DF article points out, any developer who does that will do just as well as those who decided to only keep writnig for OS9 and ignored OS X.

I don't see too many of them around anymore.

EDIT: And keep in mind, OS X came with Classic mode. You have to buy Windows. So in other words, the situation now makes it even HARDER for developers to ignore OS X than it was during the classic-switchover.

The articles on the site have been a complete waste of my time. His reasoning and logic are specious at best, trollish to generate hits at it's worst. I've deleted them from my bookmark list.

in the ass. I specifically got a G3 iBook because I thought I needed to boot into OS 9. I didn't count on Mac-On-Mac (but which isn't working on my iBook ATM). Before I reformatted and went from Tiger to Jaguar for performance reasons, I may have booted into OS 9 four or five times in five months. However, programs like Simcity 2000 were choppy in Classic mode, and VPC 3 wouldn't run at all.

If you can get Mac-On-Mac to run, Guest, you can probably scan from a virtual Mac running OS 9, and then mount the virtual HD on OS X and move the files.

i believe apple will include side-by-side virtualization in leopard, the reason is this:

if you need to boot into windows and OSX separately, i would assume most users wouldn't even bother to boot back into OSX if the task can be done right there in windows... this has nothing to do with the elegance or ease of use within the software so much as it does the inherent laziness of the general populus.

the ideal situation (it would seem, unless they know something i don't) would be to maintain an OSX environment with windows firing up when it is needed (much like in parallel's software) this would leave the user constantly exposed to OSX giving them the idea that windows should only be used on an "as needed basis..." kind of like an alcoholic friend who happens to be a really good plumber. OSX has the capabilities to be completely resourceless when it isn't being used (well, mostly resourceless... it was the main reason i made the plunge back in the os 9 days) so i can imagine this would not affect performance much.

PS- i'm glad someone brought up the monochrome windows logo, i thought that was hilarious in a subtle, apple sort of way...

Microsoft is still updating it. The world is still writing software for it. I love Daring Fireball's writing but I think they missed on this one. OS9 was marginalized by the company that created it. I don't see this happening with Windows.

Dont you NEED to have OS X to run windows on a Mac? I mean you just cant boot up FROM a XP install cd and then do it from scratch . . . or can you? I mean can you bypass OS X entirely when you get a spanking new Mac and dump Windoze on it? I dont think so. . . so By default OS X will be the choice most Mac buyers will use and HAVE to use B4 they even drop windows on the poor machine. . .

I've gone twenty years without having to use windows. Why in the world would I now? There's nothing I can't do on my Mac that would encourage me to use Windows. I'm really starting to wonder if all of this pro-windows mania on these sites isn't actually the work of trolls.

Quote

Guest wrote:
There's nothing I can't do on my Mac that would encourage me to use Windows.

Well Boot Camp isn't TRYING to get Mac users to use Windows.

If that's what it was for it would be very stupid of Apple to make it, wouldn't it?

It's trying to get Windows users to use OS X. Since you're not a Windows user you can happily ignore this whole thing.

I'm excited as hell about bootcamp. Our IT person at work runs whenever he sees me coming because I keep trying to get him to help me get connected from home via the VPN at work, and nothing has worked so far. I think the Mac scares him, honestly. Now I'll be able to work from home with a simple reboot.

A friend of mine has seriously been considering getting a Mac because she is so fed up with viruses, and spyware, and the meriad crap that comes with windows. When I told her about bootcamp she made up her mind. She is switching, as quickly as possible. She doesn't have to worry about throwing away the two windows programs she uses that don't have Mac equivilants, and can start adjusting to OS X right away. We are going to the Apple Store to-morrow to get her a 20 inch iMac.

I think Apple made a smart move here. There is no excuse not to buy a Mac now

Quote

frazzledglispa wrote:


A friend of mine has seriously been considering getting a Mac because she is so fed up with viruses, and spyware, and the meriad crap that comes with windows. When I told her about bootcamp she made up her mind. She is switching, as quickly as possible. She doesn't have to worry about throwing away the two windows programs she uses that don't have Mac equivilants, and can start adjusting to OS X right away. We are going to the Apple Store to-morrow to get her a 20 inch iMac.

I've got the EXACT same story about a guy I work with. He's waiting for the iBooks to go Intel before he buys, but once that happens he'll be joining us.

Think about that. If every Mac users finds just 1 friend like this Mac market share would double! I don't think that's as crazy an idea as it was last week.

I find this to be a pretty useful bit actually. I was considering building a PC because I'm interested in the games available on that platform. Now I won't have to. Works fine for me.

You still have to pay $200 for the home edition of windows in order to use this, don't you? Or is there a cheaper way? I don't think too many mac users will really do this. Hopefully, PC users

Quote

ireid2k wrote:
Dont you NEED to have OS X to run windows on a Mac? I mean you just cant boot up FROM a XP install cd and then do it from scratch . . . or can you?

Sort of but not really. With the release of BOOT Camp Apple also released a firmware update for intel based macs that adds bios support. Once this update has been performed you can install Windows and only windows on a Mac. It seams like the only source for Windows device drivers is throught boot camp so you will need OS X for that as well. Chances are they are or will be available seperatly soon.

Small White Car wrote:

Quote

Mr. Stern, on the other hand, is being totally insane. Let me get this straight...if I run Windows and OS X at home on TWO different machines that's ok, but if I run Windows and OS X at home on ONE machine that's bad?

Can ANYONE explain that to me? What's the difference!? Well, I save money by not giving any to Dell. That's one difference. Other than that...hmmm...I can't think of any.

I can't explain it either. It makes the Mac that much more versatile.

What I DO worry about is that in five or six years MS won't make an OS X version of Office (let's write it for Windows and make Mac users buy a copy of Vista)


and

Adobe releases a Windows only version of it's software (hey, think of the cost savings - Mac users can just purchase a copy of Vista).

I don't know about anybody else, but I can see the writing on the wall: Mac users in the future will be buying a copy of Vista (or whatever MS's OS is) to run a lot of popular software.

BTW, DF wrote:

Quote

Apple is confident that most Windows users who give Mac OS X a shot are going to prefer it — again, much in the same way that most long-time Mac users preferred Mac OS X to the old Mac OS.

I'll agree partly with DF "that most Windows users who give Mac OS X a shot are going to prefer it" - and disagree with the "much in the same way that most long-time Mac users preferred Mac OS X to the old Mac OS"

Guest wrote:

Quote

Windows is not "OS9"

Microsoft is still updating it. The world is still writing software for it. I love Daring Fireball's writing but I think they missed on this one. OS9 was marginalized by the company that created it. I don't see this happening with Windows.

It took me 5 years to make the switch to X (and yes, I now do prefer it), but I still know of people and businesses that rely on OS 9 today to get the job done. Apple - not all users - abandoned OS 9.

Today there is only 1 thing I need OS 9 for: Scanning (see my rant)

Quote

He reasons that developers may no longer see the value in writing for two platforms when Mac users can simply reboot into Windows.

Huh?

There's no "simply" about it: Macs do not and will not come with Windows pre-installed.

His fears are unfounded.

1. Burn more hydrocarbons.
2. Start smoking.
3. Drink to excess.
4. Eat lots of red meat.
5. Have unprotected sex with random women.
6. Ride my bicycle without a helmet.
7. Drive my car without a seatbelt.
8. Pull on Superman's cape.
9. Piss into the wind.
10. Mess around with Jim.

and now... the new item...

11. Use Boot Camp to boot into Windows.

Hadley Stern can suck my chocolate salty balls.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I find this to be a pretty useful bit actually. I was considering building a PC because I'm interested in the games available on that platform. Now I won't have to. Works fine for me.

Go to Fry's (assuming you're in the Bay Area), or look at www.pricegrabber.com, pick up an OEM copy of Win XP for ($100? maybe) and a firewire cable (you can never have too many firewire cables). Since you're buying hardware, you're entitled to an OEM license.

This kind of semi-illegality is rife in the Windows world. Since I switched, I've been astounded by the fact that Mac OS X requires no activation - and people don't steal it!

Quote

Guest wrote:
Go to Fry's (assuming you're in the Bay Area), or look at www.pricegrabber.com,...

I quoted the wrong post ... what a dumbass.

The way I see it, Mac users will continue using OS X for regular computing. They will still buy Mac versions of the software. Many Mac users already own PCs as well.

And it's not like we're going to see a critical mass, per se. Most average users shy away from doing stuff like this, and not everyone's going to fork over the money to buy a copy of XP.

Personally I have little reason to dual-boot, so running XP on a Mac is a novelty if anything right now.

So wait. It came out today, and you're playing it on your Mac.

Yup.

Blizzard, right?

Activision. No, Atari, my bad.

Yeah, right! The first was last week, fool!

No, this is real.

How can this be?! Were there free iPods involved?

Something like that. I had to buy a copy of Windows.

Hah! What?! No. You can do that?!

You can now.

Uh, how much did you say that thing cost?

Quote

burreyeann wrote:
Today there is only 1 thing I need OS 9 for: Scanning (see my rant)

See my answer to your rant. You should try VueScan. Go to VersionTracker and search on "scanner" or just follow the links I put in my answer.

I’d rather put a fresh dog turd on my MacBook keyboard and close the lid than install Windoze on it.

Quote

Rainy Day wrote:
I’d rather pull a fresh dog turd out of my toilet with a coat hanger and close the lid than clean it with Windex.

I think boot camp is the response to a fatacompli. Initially thats the competition that made this a possibility in the first place.

Apple is just bowing gracefully to the enevitable and also preventing more people than neccasary from finding out a lot about the booting tech of the OS which is what the end user was forced to do with the comp-hack approach.

They make it almost inevitable that a user will use bootcamp rather than the hack by providing needed drivers and ease of use.(official recognition ie it's safe to do)

speculation:
If CPU implementation (ie hardware) makes platform independence a reality this is just the first stage in trying to get as many people as possible to have a taste of OSX before the next fatacompli that with this tech in place on chip any computer will be able to install any OS and have it run natively.


The problem apple faces is that when the majority try that with OSX on a white box PC they will come up against the brick wall of unsupported hardware peripherals et al.

It won't work well without a lot of teaking not good for apples rep of 'just working'.

The first of the next stages IMO is the provision of a lesser version of osx for x86 platform with the priviso that it's unsuported but maybe compatible with 'this list of hard ware'. When you want to upgrade to the full suite of software/hardware come on back and buy a Mac.

Such an option might be of interest to OEMs. Bundled in with windows on a dual boot machine roughly configured to apples HW list. Apple gets the licence fee and holds on to control over the idea of the link between hard ware & full OS support. At the same time exposing more odinary PC users to it without all the risks to rep that an uncontrolled distribution would entail.

If you bring out a killer peripheral (tablet-video-ipod-pda) that works using this cut down vesion of the OS this will also drive exposure. This may enable OSX to survive vertualisation technology as more and more PCs come with a 'vesion' installed and with a reason to use it..

You don't need OS X on your system, just hold down the option key and the windows install CD shows up as a bootable disk.

Boot Camp is somewhat misleading as it only exists to re-partition your Hard drive and burn a CD of drivers, It is the firmware update that provides the CSM that makes the Mac compatible with legacy OS's that require a BIOS.

bump

I have wanted a mac ever since OSX came out. I love OSX, but there are still business programs (and games ) that I needed windows for. Bootcamp is what clenched my decision to buy a mac. I would prefer it if I would never have to boot into windows, and from now on, I will buy the mac version of a program if it is available, but it is great to have the option. I just ordered my macbook pro on saturday, and I can not wait to be a mac user (I figure it will be here by wednesday). The specs are so good on the macbook, that I plan on banishing my desktop to the living room and only use my macbook (on my dell 24"). Now the only thing I can't wait to see is a docking solution.

This is the smartest move out of a long trend of smart decissions coming from Apple.
Apple is not reacting, it is leading. And for those that think that M$, Adobe, etc, can shut down their version of their software for OSX, think again.
Apple would be ready to take their place in a moment's notice with improved versions of iWorks, iPhoto, iPDF or whatever. Adobe, M$, etc, would be losing a profitable, high segment of the pie forever (as Quark did in the OSX transition), and they are not that stupid. If anything they have now more pressure to deliver better products for the Mac, as now there will be direct comparison of both versions, and people don't like to be charged the same for a version that delivers less.
Games will be a different matter of course, because nobody ever bought a Mac to play games. Porting companies are out of the picture, but companies that make mac-games (Pangea, etc.) will have a bigger customer base as marketshare grows and will become more profitable, unless their games are worse than their windows counterparts. But who wants to follow Stern stupid advise just to keep alive companies that cannot compite in an open market?