The Back Page: Boot Camp Means More Mac Users
by - April 13th, 2006
It's a fascinating thing, but it really seems as if more people are tense about Boot Camp, Apple's new software that makes it easy (and possible) to run Windows on an Intel-powered Mac, than there were about Apple's transition to Intel itself.
It may be that only the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X has generated this much tension in our microcosm.
Then as now, however, I am here to tell you not to worry. Allowing Windows to run on Intel-powered Macs is going to bring more people to the Mac, and when I say "Mac," I mean Mac OS X.
Not only that, but I have to give a friendly ::smack:: upside the head to anyone who thought for a second that Apple would ever stop people from running Windows on Intel-powered Macs once they decided to make the Move to Intel to begin with.
That's another story, though, and this column is going to focus on the pertinent issue of why I think this will be good for the Mac platform -- as well as being good for Apple, Inc., but I think that's largely a given for most folks.
First and foremost, I think that Apple will be able to sell more Macintosh hardware because of Boot Camp, especially if Boot Camp itself is more thoroughly integrated into Leopard and subsequent releases of Mac OS X.
Indeed, I would like to see the company make Fast User Switching between the OSes a seamless user experience, and if I can have my cake, the icing, and all the leftover batter in the mixing bowl, I will have the option of Fast User Switching and some sort of parallel environment (like the aptly-named Parallels) that would allow me to run Windows inside the Mac itself, which makes drag-and-drop between the OSes simple (like Virtual PC, but faster).
The concern among some in the Mac community is that if Mac owners can so easily run Windows, too many of those people will choose to do just that, use Windows. That, in turn, will lead to an exodus of developers from our platform.
"You want Mac support? Buy Windows," people are worried developers may say.
And my first and foremost rebuttal to this fear is will you choose to run Windows on your Mac?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
So who are all these Mac owners that are going to choose the Dark Side? The only logical answer to that is Windows users who buy a Mac, but choose to run Windows instead. After all, they are comfy with Windows, and most folks will choose to remain in the comfy zone rather than risk change and difference.
Now I want you to think about that for a moment or two. Go ahead, I'll wait (and I am not being snarky like I usually am when I say something along those lines).
So if Mac users will prefer to remain Mac users, and it's new Mac owners coming from the Windows world that are far more likely to run Windows on their pretty new Macs because of Boot Camp, what happens to the Mac's user-base?
In a worst-case scenario, it remains the same (which means it continues to rise, as it has been doing for the last 18-24 months).
In a best-case scenario, it increases more rapidly than it has as most or all of those Windows users buying Apple hardware for the first time actually try the Mac and like it.
What is most likely is that some percentage of those former Windows users will try and like the Mac (say 20% on the small side and 60% on the hooray side), which will result in what is still an increase in Mac OS X users.
In the meanwhile, Apple has the money from even those who choose Windows over Mac OS X, and that money will go to both shareholders and R&D for the Mac and other new products. That in and of itself is good for the Mac platform.
What I personally see happening is that Apple is going to sell quite a few machines to three kinds of people:
- People who have long wanted to try a Mac but were afraid to make the change (the largest group that will result in the most true Switchers).
- People who love Apple's industrial design and want that cool looking computer on their desk (a smaller group that could go either way).
- Business executives who want something slick and expensive on their desks (a much smaller, but very important, group that will serve as a Trojan Horse into the Enterprise space).
Each of those segments will have different reactions to the Mac, but even if only 10% of them became Mac OS X users, that would still represent an increase in the MaC OS X user base.
That argument is, frankly, irrefutable.
But let's go even further: I believe that the ability to run Windows is going to become a huge safety net for the primary and secondary education markets.
Your teachers want Macs, yet your IT pinhead has convinced someone on the school board that kids need to learn on the crappiest OS on the planet?
Fine! Buy a Mac and you get mixed use (and you know that most of those Macs would end up running Mac OS X). It's not as good as being all-Mac, but it's a far sight better than being all-Windows.
I think this will be even more important in higher education, where the ability to choose between Mac OS X, Linux, Unix, and Windows will be of paramount importance to many, many university settings.
The same goes for research departments in many governmental and corporate settings.
And the creative world? Forget about it! The creative market will be all over the ability to have mixed platform options.
The list goes on, and as that list grows, Apple is selling more Macs, Macs that it would not otherwise have sold.
Remember, it only takes a small percentage of those Macs that would not otherwise have been sold running Mac OS X for Apple to grow the installed Mac OS X user base.
So tell me again about these developers who are going to abandon the Mac?
Please, brother, it ain't gonna happen, and if it does happen here and there, new developers will be there to fill the void because there will be more Mac users to buy their software.
Also, it should be noted that developing for the Mac is going to become that much easier for Windows developers because of the move to Intel. Developers wanting to develop for both platforms have had to worry about not only the different OSes, but the different processor architecture and everything that entails. No longer. Coupled with the growing user-base I keep going on about, the idea of supporting two platforms will be less of an issue than it was even last year.
Lastly, I would like to bring up an issue I mentioned in yesterday's column, and that is the subject of one Stephen P. Jobs. Mr. Jobs believes so strongly in the concept of controlling the whole widget (i.e. the hardware and software), I think it impossible for Apple to sell computers without also having an OS to run on them as long as he is in charge.
Without that control, Apple loses its entire competitive advantage, a message that Mr. Jobs and other execs have hammered home again and again.
Tying that back into today's column, it should be obvious that Stephen P. Jobs knows this far better than you or me.
While I hardly subscribe to the idea that he is infallible (Suing journalists for their sources? Banning books? Folly and un-American all at the same time!), I do think it's inescapable that his business instincts have been firing in the 90-95% success range in the last seven or eight years.
If my supposition that Apple (with Mr. Jobs at the helm) will never sell a computer if it doesn't control the hardware and software is true, then it is obvious that Mr. Jobs thinks that Boot Camp will not threaten that business model.
So there you have it. Steve Jobs must then agree with me...*
Fear not, my fellow Mac users. Our ranks are going to continue to grow!
* This last exercise in logic was brought to you by Duck Suppliers, Inc. -- Duck Suppliers, Inc. "You bring the scales, we'll bring the ducks, and let the witches beware!"
began using Apple computers in 1983 in a high school BASIC programming class. He started using Macs in 1990 when the Kinko's guy taught him how to use Aldus PageMaker, finally buying a Power Computing Power 100 in 1995. Today, Bryan is the Editor of The Mac Observer, and has contributed to the print versions of MacAddict and MacFormat (UK).
You can send your comments directly to him, or you can also post your comments below.
Most Recent Columns From The Back Page
- $5 WiFi Routers...With a Catch - June 27th
- Boot Camp Means More Mac Users - April 13th
- Rob "Wrong Again" Enderle Peers Into Apple's Windows Future - April 12th
The Back Page Archives
Observer Comments
I'm not sure why Mac users are so concerned with Boot Camp. I've been wanting to buy a Mac (and thus switch), but some of the programs that I need to use only come available in the MS Windows world. Yes, there's virtual PC, but from what I've heard, running virtual PC in Rosetta is a no-go. So, there really hasn't been an acceptable solution ever since the new Intel Macs starting rolling out (unless you decide to stick with remaining PowerPC products).
Now with BootCamp and the stated integration into future versions of the Mac OS, I have no reason (as a Windows user) not to switch. I have access to all of the programs that I need (games, business applications, etc) and I have access to arguably the best consumer OS available in some of the most attractively designed hardware.
As a (soon-to-be-former) Windows user, I'd say that Mac users have nothing to worry about. Developers will go where the users and the market is - and people have been switching and will continue to switch to the Mac.
Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:51 am Subject: Macs are far more reliable because they control the whole wi
Macs are far more reliable because they control the whole widget. Quality control of the whole widget makes things work much better. Many of the software titles are that much better because the hardware and software are tightly integrated because again, Apple controls the whole widget. I think this is a good thing.
I'm also perplexed why anyone who has used the Mac on a regular basis is concerned that other regular Mac users will tolerate anything else.
The fact is, and the worriers should know this by now, OS X is superior to Windows.
More secure. More stable. More elegant. Easier to set up. Easier to use.
Oh wait, they don't make as many games for the Mac. Now I'm worried. 
Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:57 pm Subject: Boot camp enables easy switch from Mac to Windows
What Boot Camp provides, which didn't previously exist, was an easy "exit strategy" for companies wishing to switch from the Mac to Windows. Previously, companies buying Macs were "locked in" and couldn't easily switch to Windows without replacing their hardware; Boot Camp removes Apple lock-in and eases Windows migration.
With Boot Camp, people making the switch from Mac to Windows can boot into OS X to run their old Mac applications from time to time, while the enterprise as a whole switches to a standard Windows desktop and applications. Once all necessary applications are available, users will no longer need to boot OS X, and can switch to running Windows full-time. New computers do not have to be Apple machines - they can be inexpensive PC compatible boxes that are Windows-only.
Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:16 pm Subject:
I have a friend that (was) is considing a hp or tosiba laptop. Until I told her about boot camp. One of her co-workers had loaned her powerbook to her for a few days. She really liked it but didn't think it was a option for her. But boot camp put her back on the fence. So we will see if that gets her to get a macbook after all.
" If they were trying to exit, they wouldn't go through the expense of buying a new Apple machine in the first place."
Existing OS X installations wishing to migrate to Windows over time can ease the transition by getting dual-booting intel Macs. Over time, Mac OS X can be end-of-lifed, and all future applications can be based on Windows and generic PC hardware.
Similarly, dual-platform organizations can standardize on the Windows platform by requiring all Mac users to upgrade to dual-booting intel Macs.
In my little bit of experience trying to use a Mac, which was, I think, a 'G5', real shiny, clear plastic, futuristic-looking thing, with real spacey clear plastic speakers, I got the feeling it wasn't that great. What I experienced was that the mouse had no "right click" capability, which made for slow going in generating a large Powerpoint presentation, and then, the fonts would not display reliably correctly when the presentation was opened on a Windows PC. Was there something wrong with the machine I was using? It also had 'Virtual PC' emulation software installed, which seemed to cause bad things to happen. This machine, by the way, I think had OS 9 on it. Anyway, this was my boss's computer, and he basically fucks up everything electronic he touches, so I might have gotten an invalid bad first experience. But what is it about the Apple computers that is supposed to be generally so superior? Just asking.
People who are worried that this is a bad move from Apple are not worried about users choosing, as you say, to use Windows as their main operating system. Instead, they are worried about the choice being made for them.
Let us face it, there is no reasonable alternative to Adobe Photoshop. If Adobe chooses to stop making it for the Mac and says to its users, "Hey, boot up in Windows." People will do this because they will have no choice. Sure, they will be mad at Adobe, but they will remain Adobe customers. At that point, if enough developers take that approach, people will have less and less reason to boot in the Mac OS, no matter how much better they enjoy it.
"Guest wrote:
Intruder wrote:
If they were trying to exit, they wouldn't go through the expense of buying expensive Apple machines in the first place."
No, they very well might have existing Mac users who they are wanting to convert.
They might also be a dual-platform environment looking for a way to switch to one officially supported platform (i.e. Windows), while still providing some legacy support for Mac users during the Windows transition.
Basically it enables them to smoothly switch from a Mac to Windows-only environment. During the transition, dual-boot systems allow the use of legacy Mac applications, which can then be smoothly phased out over time. This provides a "grace period" for Mac users to switch their applications and data over to the Windows environment.
As Guest noted, it makes it easier for companies to transition their users to Windows versions of their products. They can say, well, all new versions of the software will be Windows-only, but legacy Mac users can use them via dual-booting (or, in the future, virtual machine monitors.)
While in the past Virtual PC did not provide adequate performance for something like Photoshop, Boot Camp (and other virtual environments) will allow new Windows versions to run at full speed, easing the transition to a Windows-only environment.
Here's how it might pan out:
1. Apple announces Aperture 3.0, including enhanced image editing features.
2. Adobe announces that Photoshop CS will be the last version of Photoshop for the Mac platform.
3. For a limited time, Adobe announces a free cross-grade from the Mac versions of Photoshop CS to the Windows versions.
4. Adobe encourages all legacy Mac users to use Boot Camp and/or VMware to run Windows Photoshop CS, and to transition all of their data to Windows partitions.
5. Adobe opens an "Adobe Windows Migration Center" and web site to assist its customers in the Mac to Windows transition.
6. Adobe announces that support for all Mac versions of Adobe software will end on December 31st, 2008.
"Let us face it, there is no reasonable alternative to Adobe Photoshop. If Adobe chooses to stop making it for the Mac and says to its users, 'Hey, boot up in Windows.' People will do this because they will have no choice."
I thought so, too. Recently I had to format and clean install OS X (the run since 10.1 was pretty good ). I took the opportunity to upgrade to Tiger. However, I couldn't find my old Adobe CDs to install and needed something to work with until I could find them, get new CDs, etc. So, I tried The GIMP ( http://www.gimp.org/macintosh/ ).
It's free. And it has opened all my Photoshop files so far with only a few things having to be reset (dynamic effects, like drop shadows, etc. mainly). There are a few interface differences, which is to be expected. And because most of my work is done for me or by me (not a lot of interaction with groups and files from outside right now), it should do me well.
If you work in a group among Photoshop users, then this may not be a route. But it works for me so far and, if it continues this way, I may not upgrade my Photoshop after all. I consider GIMP to be a reasonable alternative.
And GIMP v2.2.8 is already a universal application.
Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:58 pm Subject: Re: Transitions
QuoteAnonymous wrote:
"Guest wrote:
Intruder wrote:
If they were trying to exit, they wouldn't go through the expense of buying expensive Apple machines in the first place."
No, they very well might have existing Mac users who they are wanting to convert.
They might also be a dual-platform environment looking for a way to switch to one officially supported platform (i.e. Windows), while still providing some legacy support for Mac users during the Windows transition.
Basically it enables them to smoothly switch from a Mac to Windows-only environment. During the transition, dual-boot systems allow the use of legacy Mac applications, which can then be smoothly phased out over time. This provides a "grace period" for Mac users to switch their applications and data over to the Windows environment.
As Guest noted, it makes it easier for companies to transition their users to Windows versions of their products. They can say, well, all new versions of the software will be Windows-only, but legacy Mac users can use them via dual-booting (or, in the future, virtual machine monitors.)
While in the past Virtual PC did not provide adequate performance for something like Photoshop, Boot Camp (and other virtual environments) will allow new Windows versions to run at full speed, easing the transition to a Windows-only environment.
You were answering a troll.
Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:07 pm Subject: Re: Easing Windows adoption/migration
QuoteAnonymous wrote:
" If they were trying to exit, they wouldn't go through the expense of buying a new Apple machine in the first place."
Existing OS X installations wishing to migrate to Windows over time can ease the transition by getting dual-booting intel Macs. Over time, Mac OS X can be end-of-lifed, and all future applications can be based on Windows and generic PC hardware.
Similarly, dual-platform organizations can standardize on the Windows platform by requiring all Mac users to upgrade to dual-booting intel Macs.
While this scenario may happen on occasion, Apple (and most everybody else) is betting that the reverse is true. There is far more evidence of people transitioning from Windows to OSX than the other way around. Apple's marketshare (and, more importantly, installed base) is increasing, not decreasing, and many of those are coming from Windows.
Time will tell.
<I>"If Adobe chooses to stop making it for the Mac and says to its users, 'Hey, boot up in Windows.' People will do this because they will have no choice. Sure, they will be mad at Adobe, but they will remain Adobe customers."</I>
Y'know, a few years ago, this was said about Quark Xpress. What happened? People switched to InDesign. Between Quark's poor customer support and lack of support for Mac OS X, lots of people who wouldn't have looked twice at InDesign did so.
So I wouldn't bet the farm on this. There are plenty of graphic designers who use Macs. If Adobe pulled up stakes, someone else would go "Hey, look at the size of this market which is not being served." People might start looking at Canvas and some of Adobe's little-known competitors.
precisely, the case in point is that adobe would not drop mac simply because mac users would not be buying windows so that they can boot it up using boot camp. mac users will still run mac. period. following the logic that "guest" suggested, then a long time ago adobe would have drop mac saying "you wanna run adobe, buy a windoze pc" and microsoft would have said "you wanna run office, buy a windoze pc"
a lot of my friends are very excited because they love the mac, and they want to use the mac but some times, applications that they need to use for school require windoze and they don't have a choice then. Now, my brother is looking set to get the new ibook/macbook (whatever) simply because if his course requires windoze for that one or two wierdball apps, he can do it.
What happens if Microsoft announces support for OSX by creating a special "MacOS" bundle of Office: The Windows version, less Access, plus an XP (or even Vista, if it sees the light of day) install? That then puts lots of copies of Windows on Apple machines (especially if Leopard includes virtualisation, per the recent rampant speculation).
Nor am I convinced that the only reason Adobe doesn't drop all MacOS support is because they're scared of the GIMP taking their customers. If the GIMP was really going to do that, it would have done so already - it's been available for years (as has GraphicConvertor, which can do basic image manipulation too). The consumer version (is it Photoshop LE still?) is a different story, but everything I've read says that if you need Photoshop, the GIMP doesn't cut it. I'll bet that a far stronger reason for Adobe to keep a MacOS version of Creative Studio is the fear of nailing their colours to Microsoft's mast.
Despite what some people claim, porting of software is a concern. Most mentioned are games. It is true that games aren't so essential (and that the most successful will almost certainly continue to be ported), but they do create a buzz of interest. But other software too could potentially be affected. Not necessarily big names in consumer space, but smaller things important to running businesses. If the OSX version is only marginally profitable now, then developers might well decide to kill it, on the grounds that Windows will be available. Don't assume that something will magically come into being on the OSX side to make up for this - the MacNightowl carried a story a while a back about a doctor who could run almost all of his software on either MacOS or Windows. But one important piece was Windows only... so he switched to Windows wholesale. The problem would be more acute if Microsoft follows the strategy I suggested above. This would be very bad for OSX (although not necessarily for Apple - it is important to remember that the two are distinct).
This could go well for Apple - if the ability to dual boot truly is a security blanket which almost all never use. But you can't make rational arguments about this, and expect them to come to pass. If the computer industry operated rationally, then Unix, Windows and x86 would all be consigned to be bin of 'Old Technology.'
Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:22 pm Subject:
Why do you care about converting people to MAC OSX? Apple just cares about selling more hardware, just like the ipod. They loose money on the OS. Think about it. If they didn't have an OS Dev team they would make more money just selling hardware with windows running on it. What would the mac faithful do if they dropped OSX? Would they go buy a Dell to get back at Apple? Before you answer to this post remember you probably said that Mac would never run on Intel and that the new intel machines would never run windows.
QuoteGuest wrote:
<I>"If Adobe chooses to stop making it for the Mac and says to its users, 'Hey, boot up in Windows.' People will do this because they will have no choice. Sure, they will be mad at Adobe, but they will remain Adobe customers."</I>
Y'know, a few years ago, this was said about Quark Xpress. What happened? People switched to InDesign. Between Quark's poor customer support and lack of support for Mac OS X, lots of people who wouldn't have looked twice at InDesign did so.
So I wouldn't bet the farm on this. There are plenty of graphic designers who use Macs. If Adobe pulled up stakes, someone else would go "Hey, look at the size of this market which is not being served." People might start looking at Canvas and some of Adobe's little-known competitors.
You are totally correct in my opinion.
Actually. I believe that if Adobe pulled the plug on Mac OS X. Apple would make a world beating Graphics application with all of photoshop's features and then some.
They have already made iPhoto and Aperture. Just add a ton of features and PS plug-in capabilities to it and sell it at two thirds the price of Photoshop and they would wipe the board.
Apple have kicked Premiers and After Effects asses with Final Cut Studio.
The only difference is tis new pro app would be Mac only, everyone would want it and they would have to buy a Mac to get it. Nuff said.
However, the Graphic Design and Print Industries thrive on Macs and Adobe's key pro market is mainly Mac. The Windows Photoshop users are mainly small businesses that use it for a bit of simple photo editing and home users playing at it.
Adobe would be pretty dumb to stop supporting Mac OS X.
Also the troll that keeps suggesting businesses will start migrating to windows and upgrade from legacy mac applications. He sounds like an IT manager worrying about what will become of his job when Apple and Linux is adopted en masse...
Go away windoze troll
Comments are currently closed. Please email the author instead.
Recent Headlines - Updated July 5th
- Fri, 10:29 AM
- News - Apple Warns of Learning Interchange Security Breach
- 7:30 AM
- News - Happy Fourth of July!
- Thu, 6:07 PM
- TMO Scoop - Psystar Moves to Drop Bankruptcy Ahead of Apple Legal Battle
- 5:37 PM
- News - Uncomfirmed Reports Say Apple & Nvidia On The Outs
- 4:57 PM
- News - Microsoft Sick Over Barf Ad
- 4:09 PM
- Product News - KRK Ships R6 Passive Studio Monitor for Recording
- 3:45 PM
- John Martellaro's Blog - Particle Debris (week ending 7/2) Juiced, Joost and Goosed
- 3:12 PM
- Product News - ExactScan 2 Pro Released
- 1:56 PM
- Deal Brothers - Apple TV with 160GB Hard Drive: $324.00 Delivered
- 12:46 PM
- TMO Appearances - TMO Appearances Jeff Gamet Shares iPhone Apps on MacJury
- 10:41 AM
- Product News - Art Text 2.2 Adds New Templates, Layer Options [Updated]
- 10:04 AM
- Hot Forum Topic - Deciphering Mac Sales
The Mac Observer Reader Specials
- Download Typestyler, still the Ultimate Styling Tool for Internet, Print and Video Graphics. Works great in Classic with a Native OS X Version on the way. Free Tryout: www.typestyler.com
OWC: Big Drives, High Performance - Not High Prices! SATA 3.5" up to 1.5TB. Notebook up to 500GB. FW up to 6.0TB. 1.0TB Drive Models from as low as $97.99 www.MacSales.com
If you're using a Mac, then you've gotta check out Full Tilt Poker for Mac. This Full Tilt Poker bonus code does the unthinkable, it actually rewards!
RamJet Memory: MacBook and MacBook Pro 4GB kits for $57.99! Mac Pro 4GB Kits $99.99! iMac and Mac mini 4GB Kits for $57.99! 1TB SATA Hard Drives for $109.99! Click hereFor the latest Apple products use Ciao, a price comparison website, to find laptops like MacBook Air. Then find the best prices on MP3 players and use our comparison tool to evaluate mobile phones like the Apple iPhone.
Laptop Hardware Provided by TechRestore - Overnight Mac & iPod Repairs.
