# BootCamp - Merged with Poll



## deafmac (Oct 12, 2004)

*Boot Camp*

It's finally official that Apple now supports Windows XP  on Mac Intel Systems. Check this out.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ It's beta and free!


----------



## ColBalt (May 16, 2005)

deafmac said:


> It's finally official that Apple now supports Windows XP  on Mac Intel Systems. Check this out.
> 
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ It's beta and free!


:clap: cool
I wonder how many of the driver issues in WinXP have been solved?


----------



## deafmac (Oct 12, 2004)

ColBalt said:


> :clap: cool
> I wonder how many of the driver issues in WinXP have been solved?


Check this out at Mac Daily News

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/9139/

Seems to work fine! It will be interesting to see what the speed of Windows will be.


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

Wow.

I just heard about this on CNBC and jumped online ASAP. Stock in up 5% on the news. 

Very intriguing news.

H!


----------



## macsackbut (Dec 15, 2004)

If they had released this on April 1, I would not have believed it, and I must say, I'm really surprised. Leopard is starting to sound better and better. 

I'm starting to get that old "Tiger" feeling again.  

Now if only I had an Intel Mac...


----------



## Tiranis (Jun 19, 2005)

Wow, looks great! Thanks for the link.

I'm looking forward to hearing form people who go through with this—I'm really interested in what the 3D and gaming performance will be, that is if the video drivers are included and they're native.


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

Heard the *official news* on CNBC, and as usual, had me thinking - sorry, US thinking. Although this is a beta release, how do you anticipate this could affect Apple in terms of market share and now perception?? What do Ballmer and Mr Dell have to say??

Comment freely.

H!


----------



## macsackbut (Dec 15, 2004)

From the setup instructions on the page posted by deafmac: <i>"What you'll need: [...] A printer for the instructions (You’ll want to print them before installing Windows, really.)"</i>

:lmao:


----------



## emalen (Oct 10, 2004)

i saw this on macnn and completely thought it was a joke. but apparently not!
it's real.... but since I don't have a intel based mac, it really doesn't make any difference in my life right now!


----------



## ColBalt (May 16, 2005)

deafmac said:


> Check this out at Mac Daily News
> 
> http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/9139/
> 
> Seems to work fine! It will be interesting to see what the speed of Windows will be.


A good read. I love the quote at the very end.
"With Windows in disarray and Longhorn looking more like Stillborn, right now is Apple's best time to strike and strike hard.":lmao:


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

From the Apple page on Boot Camp



> Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it’ll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft Windows security fixes.


...and...



> Macs use an ultra-modern industry standard technology called EFI to handle booting. Sadly, Windows XP, and even the upcoming Vista, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS. But with Boot Camp, the Mac can operate smoothly in both centuries.


----------



## jdurston (Jan 28, 2005)

What's Boot Camp, can you explain or provide a link?

Edit: I figured this out pretty quick in the next few minutes as the torrent of posts began.


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

Pelao said:


> From the Apple page on Boot Camp
> 
> 
> 
> ...and...


I was about to quote the exact same.



> what you'll need....
> 
> A printer for the instructions (You’ll want to print them before installing Windows, really.)


LOL.

Essentially, expect to do more work to maintain ur computer.

Has there been a PC virus infected Intel Mac yet?? Does anyone want to donate one for the research? 



H!


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Nice, I love the Apple Info.


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

This is VERY very interesting...


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

Not nearly as interesting as virtualization on OS X. I am more interested in that.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I was wondering why it was snowing on the way to work. Hell has froze over.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I think it's grevious news. How can apple say they won't support windows on a Mac and yet go to all the trouble of making a helper application that _supports_ windows on a Mac? They're talking about of both sides of their mouth.

We'll just have more reports of windows problems on macs now. People whose macs get wasted from windows malware and viruses.

This certainly is a double-edged sword.


----------



## sketch (Sep 10, 2004)

I'm never good at predicting if Apple did something that will be good or not but I can't help but chuckle a little. I mean, laugh _with_ Apple and _at_ Dell, etc. I mean, now people can buy a nice-looking computer and load Windows on it if they're too afraid to switch. Though they can't get it bundled.

And, wasn't it just yesterday that Micrsoft announced they would be able to host Linux? With that news I was indifferent. DOn't know why I'm different with Mac, though.



> We'll just have more reports of windows problems on macs now. People whose macs get wasted from windows malware and viruses.


Unless that's part of Apple's plan. Many people report all these issues with Windows on their Intel-Macs and APple can just turn around and say "Well, it only happens when you run Windows. On OS X however, we've received no complaints". Then boom! Everyone's hooked up to the Internet via OS X.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Did VirtualPC already die, or is this its grim reaper?

...

I liked it better when Windows was a hack you could perform instead of a feature.


----------



## 9mmCensor (Jan 27, 2006)

Means alot to me (a Windows/Linux user). It means the transition to Mac, wont be brutal without some essential windows only apps.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> I was wondering why it was snowing on the way to work. Hell has froze over


:lmao: :clap: 

O lord, needed that laugh. It's our Wedding Anniversary (9th) and now this...!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Is it starting to sound like it *was* an April Fool's joke?


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

from the site:



> Word to the Wise
> 
> Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it’ll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft Windows security fixes.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

This could be awesome! or really, really not. I'm going to try it right now.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Looks like a great idea, One house...One computer...Two operating systems.
When the virus's start taking over the dark side then the light side will always be there.

Betcha Apple increases their profit margin with this great little idea.
Also...I'm sure the Mac/PC gamers will like this idea as well.

D


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

ehMax said:


> I was wondering why it was snowing on the way to work. Hell has froze over.


...snow...going to work...
...Hell...

...Toronto?

:lmao:


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Kitchener.  

Now I know why Apple did not announce *this* on their anniversary, April 1st. Like anyone would believe it.


----------



## jdurston (Jan 28, 2005)

Wow, this is awesome, as an engineering student there are a ton of Windows only programs.

Anybody wanna buy a Powerbook 1.5Ghz?:greedy: I going to go intel iBook.  
Apple's killing me with the delays.XX)

Bootcamp has sealed the deal for me.


----------



## jdurston (Jan 28, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Kitchener.
> 
> Now I know why Apple did not announce *this* on their anniversary, April 1st. Like anyone would believe it.


Agreed, I think the lack of annoucement was Apple's April fool's joke.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh my....this changes EVERYTHING. Schools are going to be lined up for this.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

For practical daily use it may be somewhat awkward - switching between OSs means a reboot and the other OS not running.

But certainly schools, some developrs and maybe some gamers will like it.

There is something faintly disquieting or impure about it....can't quite put a finger on it.

Smart move by Apple in including it with the next verion of OS X as it sort of takes some steam out of the hacker world. A sort of hack the hacker thing...


----------



## ericssonboi (Jan 26, 2005)

This is incrediable news indeed... 
For those who have been waiting... an official solution...
What more can you ask for...

And it would seem like an April Fools joke... on their anniversary...
No one would beleive for sure...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

just think of the corporate world
they can now buy ONE computer and pick whatever OS you want to run
x or xp
standardized hardware
it's a great move by apple

i'm guessing that msce types might be lining up to take apple courses


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

I am speechless.










Now like many others, I want an Intel Mac.


----------



## UnleashedLive (Aug 9, 2004)

Very tempted to sell my ibook and pick up a new intel ibook now....


----------



## ender78 (Jan 23, 2005)

No matter what people say, there are still reasons for people to run Windows. I am personally a fan of Virtualization, but I don't play games. I'd much rather see a gamer 
pick up a MacBook Pro and then be exposed to OS X a side result than to have them buy a Dell and have no chance at the Mac experience.


----------



## pcronin (Feb 20, 2005)

ColBalt said:


> :clap: cool
> I wonder how many of the driver issues in WinXP have been solved?


All of them.
The BootCamp CD is just basicly a driver CD with the apropo blessing and whatnot that was in the unofficial versions. (at least that's what I've seen looking at it this morning).

I haven't installed it yet to see if its got as pretty of a boot/splash screen as narf/blanka's version yet though


----------



## pcronin (Feb 20, 2005)

Pelao said:


> For practical daily use it may be somewhat awkward - switching between OSs means a reboot and the other OS not running.
> 
> But certainly schools, some developrs and maybe some gamers will like it.
> 
> ...


I knew the hack the hacker was going to happen.. Jujst look at apple's history. Jobs had them declare themselves the "pirates of silicon valley" after all 

The only problem with schools, is that most are engrained in contracts with Dell or HP, and getting a Mac is practicly impossible.
This might help sway some, but I think most will be stuck in the Dell/HP/MS hole for quite a while after this..


----------



## Bighead (May 3, 2005)

*Games!*

Man oh Man! Can't wait! Looking forward to play PC games on my Mac!  

ps Sorry Aspyr and MacSoft...


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

And now I know why MS scraped their vista project until next year. B.G must have got info on this development and now has a hell of a lot of work catching up. I bet Vista could potentially run on intelmacs too.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

It'll be interesting to see how the boobs at the big box stores explain this!


----------



## harrydude (May 17, 2005)

So are the video drivers already on Bootcamp? Also, does iSight work with Windows on an intel Mac via Bootcamp?


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

Ender: Your looking at one PC-Gamer thats already made the mac switch for games. (Running off my MBP.)


----------



## satchmo (May 26, 2005)

Kind of makes my decision to switch from my G5 iMac to Intel iMac worth it.  

But does anybody else wonder how this will affect sales of the current PowerMac G5's? That said, it was probably very slow anyways.

It also means that these new Intel desktops are closer than you think. Is Leopard usually released at the WWDC? When is that?


----------



## harrydude (May 17, 2005)

O also, Apple says that the Apple Bluetooth keyboard and mouse won't work with Bootcamp..... is this true? I currently use my bluetooth keyboard and mouse with the onmac.net bootloader Windows XP and it works without drivers. Can someone confirm if the bluetooth k+m works with bootcamp?


----------



## speckledmind (Jan 12, 2005)

http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/
WOW !
I see the light ! ! !
I quote the first line, because it has a tremendous impact on the Future of Apple.
" More and more people are buying and loving Macs. To make this choice simply irresistible '.
This line of text makes me think of one thing, and one thing only, " PC users ", and if they take this little TidBit in consideration, and I think they will, and it brings them to the Mac Platform, ie ; the Mac Mini let's say, way to go for advanced thinking Apple.
This will make the Mac " The Computer " to have, for all users.
" Run XP natively ", Step aside all the third party emulation software, and step right into the world of integration, by using Apple software directly.
" What you’ll need ", Mac OS X Tiger v10.4.6, 10GB free hard Dish space, Intel-Based Mac.
Think about it, this is close to nothing as a " need ", and the best of it all, it's " A Now Thing ", not next month or next year.

WOW.
Apple has just made Leaps and bounds in the computer industry.

Steve, I bow down to you.
You have now made it easier then ever, to show the PC world, “ how easy it is to use a Mac “.. :clap:

Now that " BootCamp " is out of the bag, what else does Apple have waiting in the side lines ???


----------



## jkojima (Dec 31, 2002)

Apple says for sure things like iSight and MacBook keyboard lighting won't work... but for the BT keyboard and mouse they only say it won't work "correctly", whatever that means.

It sounds like at least to install you'd need USB, but I know people have gotten the Apple BT equipment to work on non-Apple Windows computers, so I imagine it's possible to set up the BT stuff after Windows is installed.


----------



## Aero (Mar 2, 2006)

harrydude said:


> So are the video drivers already on Bootcamp? Also, does iSight work with Windows on an intel Mac via Bootcamp?


I got this from macworld article

As a part of the installation procedure, the Boot Camp Assistant prompts you to burn a CD containing all of the necessary drivers to run networking, Bluetooth, graphics and other functions in Windows. After the Windows installation is complete, users insert the CD, which automatically installs the drivers. The iSight video camera and Apple Remote included with Intel-based Macs won’t work under Windows XP, however.


----------



## rhythms (Sep 24, 2003)

i think this is pretty big. It legitimizes Apple with IT departments that only think windows.

It's great for business users, and great for schools.

Apple was smart to get the MacBook Pro's out the door first, so all those business execs can get a shiny new laptop that hey, now boots XP if they need to.

As to the non-support issue, I don't see it as different from Apple not supporting any third-party software or OS. Apple doesn't provide support for running Linux, if you have a problem with your Linux install you don't call apple. But they have provided a way for users to do it, so what level of responsibility WILL they take for it? Support for the installation process, I suppose. After it's installed, anything that happens while you're using XP is on you.

It's interesting that they didn't release this right away, but waited until after the hacker competition was finished, letting the buzz of that build up and die down, and then now come out with the elegant Mac way of installing XP, including a CD with drivers and so forth, choosing which partition at startup, etc.

It's a Trojan Horse, is what it is...


----------



## jlcinc (Dec 13, 2002)

Wow hell has frozen over, even City TV (Toronto) has the information as a print headline and a news story.

John


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

This is so cool I finally have an excuse to get the wife a Mac 

Laterz


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Fantastic news for market growth. But, virtualization would be ideal, running both OSes simultaneously, having copy-paste work between them etc. My only concern is how this will impact on native Mac OS X application developers -- and the array of available titles supported on the Mac OS platform


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

I haven't read everyone's response here, bit busy, so sorry if I repeat what someone else has said....

but doesn't this bring up a problem of 'support' for Windows users on Mac machines.

Say someone has Windows running on an Intel iMac (using Leopard I assume) and they have a crash or some kind of issue.....who do they phone ?

Would Microsoft approve of it being loaded onto an EFI machine or would Apple support it because it's their hardware ? (I know it's not supported by them currently, but someone will have to take ownership of it's problems at some stage surely ?)

I imagine Apple call centres will get a 10 fold increase once it's officially released under Leopard.......maybe that's why they are moving it all to India ????


----------



## rhythms (Sep 24, 2003)

it's almost a death knell for porting games over to Mac. Other than Mac only game developers, I'm not sure that going forward there's much market for Mac ports anymore.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> it's almost a death knell for porting games over to Mac. Other than Mac only game developers, I'm not sure that going forward there's much market for Mac ports anymore.


Possibly, but don't forget that this does not put XP on your Mac...you still have to go out and buy XP. So there will still be lots (most) of people just running OS X.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

rhythms said:


> it's almost a death knell for porting games over to Mac. Other than Mac only game developers, I'm not sure that going forward there's much market for Mac ports anymore.


Agreed.


----------



## Fen (Nov 26, 2004)

The Apple remote and USB Modem apparently don't work either. But, who cares?


----------



## postivevibez (Jun 25, 2005)

Damn I think I wanna sell my ibook now!


----------



## Canuckmakem (Jan 12, 2006)

I'm not going to do it on my iMac.... but I can see why some people would want it.


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

Pelao said:


> Possibly, but don't forget that this does not put XP on your Mac...you still have to go out and buy XP. So there will still be lots (most) of people just running OS X.



I have no interest in running XP on my machine, I bought a Mac to use the operating system.....but then I'm not a huge gamer anyway.

How much is a copy of XP these days anyway ?


----------



## WorldIRC (Mar 7, 2004)

Just did it... full dual display support, internal speakers, power management... its great!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Loafer said:


> Say someone has Windows running on an Intel iMac (using Leopard I assume) and they have a crash or some kind of issue.....who do they phone ?


If you need to call someone for Windows Tech Support, you shouldn't be loading it on your Mac in the first place.


----------



## overkill (May 15, 2005)

WorldIRC said:


> Just did it... full dual display support, internal speakers, power management... its great!


just did as well. fantastic. no issues at all on the install.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> If you need to call someone for Windows Tech Support, you shouldn't be loading it on your Mac in the first place.


if you buy a retail (not OEM) version of Windows you are entitiled to 3 free support calls from M$

I don't think M$ can get away from supporting windows, but they may want to blame the hardware


----------



## retrocactus (Jun 17, 2003)

overkill said:


> just did as well. fantastic. no issues at all on the install.


What's the logon/startup like? Would it be possible to post screenshots/photos (even crappy phonecam ones).

I'm debating on getting an iMac today because of this development...was going to wait until Leopard but this is too tempting!

Edit: nevermind, just read the pdf install guide...tried any games?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

As interesting as this is, I think it's hilarious and sad that so many pure Mac enthusiasts (in the Mitch Hedberg sense of the word "enthusiast") are jumping on the BootCamp bandwagon.

XP, XP Pro? Gross.


----------



## deafmac (Oct 12, 2004)

*Boot Camp!*



Canuckmakem said:


> I'm not going to do it on my iMac.... but I can see why some people would want it.


To play Solitaire


----------



## cptnkirk (Dec 1, 2004)

*Bootcamp*

Well, I don't really care to have anything to do with Winblows. 

All I need to do is run IE to test websites. Having to reboot to try to fix problems after checking things out would be a real nightmare. I really want an environment like Classic for Winblows apps to keep working in OS X. Also who really wants all the problems that Winblows brings. 

This new feature is too hard to use for me. I'll wait for virtualization. Much more usable for me.


----------



## WorldIRC (Mar 7, 2004)

I haven't tried games but protools works perfectly with my MBOX and all!!


----------



## overkill (May 15, 2005)

retrocactus said:


> What's the logon/startup like? Would it be possible to post screenshots/photos (even crappy phonecam ones).
> 
> I'm debating on getting an iMac today because of this development...was going to wait until Leopard but this is too tempting!
> 
> Edit: nevermind, just read the pdf install guide...tried any games?


havent tried any games as of yet. just playing around and having some fun. very smooth and lightning fast!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

do the xp network drivers work?


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

Is this SJ's solution for the home entertainment system, just run Windows?


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

HowEver said:


> As interesting as this is, I think it's hilarious and sad that so many pure Mac enthusiasts (in the Mitch Hedberg sense of the word "enthusiast") are jumping on the BootCamp bandwagon.
> 
> XP, XP Pro? Gross.


I wish I could use a Mac at work but in my line of work the software is WinBlows only and it would make my life a bit easier knowing that I could just reboot my comp and be using a Mac within minutes.

Laterz


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

i knew the legit copy of Windows XP Pro I bought for $240 I kept would do good for something... now... where the heck did I put the product key.


----------



## Tays (Jan 22, 2005)

Rebooting to switch OSes will likely not be too much of a hassle once flash cache technology is released on Mac computers and is improved to significantly cut down boot times.

If it took me 30 seconds to switch OSes I wouldn't lose sleep over it.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

I think this is HUGE, and very good for Apple in the long run and short-term.

This is the part that makes me think developers will not abandon the Mac platform:
_"Word to the Wise - Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it’ll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft Windows security fixes."_

This is the heading I put on an email to some friends, PC and Mac, announcing BootCamp (I've also included here, the start of the announcement from MacDailyNews.com):

_*Now it's official - Anyone who buys a new Windows PC after about July, 2006 can not simply (and charitably) be called gullible, misinformed, or misled, they'll be outright "stupid"!*

Apple introduces Boot Camp: public beta software enables Intel-based Macs to run Windows XP

Wednesday, April 05, 2006 - 08:32 AM EDT

Apple today introduced Boot Camp, public beta software that enables Intel-based Macs to run Windows XP. Available as a download beginning today, Boot Camp allows users with a Microsoft Windows XP installation disc to install Windows XP on an Intel-based Mac, and once installation is complete, users can restart their computer to run either Mac OS X or Windows XP. ..._


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

This paragraph appears as part of the install package, BUT what exactly does it mean? If you Intel MacBook Pro or iMac is damaged as a result of use, are you left holding the bag for repairs even if you have Apple Care?

"Please be sure you have everything you need (see sidebar to right) before downloading the Boot Camp public beta installer. This public beta is not supported by AppleCare. Please read the terms and conditions for important information about beta software. Please submit feedback to help future Boot Camp versions run more smoothly."


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> These folks—the CIOs and CTOs at a company near you—need a hedge if they are ever going to introduce Apple into the enterprise beyond a few token PowerBooks.
> 
> Boot Camp is that hedge. CIOs have a lot invested in Windows and aren't going to junk the OS for Apple. However, if a CIO can get a twofer—Windows XP and Mac OS on one machine—a flyer may make some sense.


today's eweek.com


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Call me jaundiced, but dual boot seems incredibly cumbersome (oh, this website doesn't work right in Safari, so I'll just quit all of my open applications, reboot in XP, launch IE, type in the URL, look at it and then decide whether to stay in Windows or reboot in to OS X again).

You also ends up with two operating systems to worry about on your computer and, for most people, I don't see how that makes life easier.

I can see this being useful to a few people, and not that useful either. The most grotesque outcome would be if a significant number of switchers end up running windows most of the time on their macs.


----------



## edmonton (Mar 24, 2006)

Apple should have released it sooner to claim that $13,000 something prize.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I'm sure that the Movie publishing industry is gonna love this, 3DS Animation, etc.
Now all we need is a new Apple intel Mini with a full size hard drive and video card,
Perhaps Apple could reinvent the Shuttle, A 30th Anniversay Mac Mini Cube perhaps?

D


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

For me, it's all about NHL 06  now I don't need to spend money on a PS3 or something since I have some USB controllers and an existing copy of Windows XP Pro... I'm sure the iMac must perform pretty decently.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

The use of a bootloader (via the Option key) is the way we've always dual-booted Linux, and it makes sense that Apple would use that to boot Windows. This is great news for people who want to dual-boot x86 Linux; it should work the same (and have the same issues: driver support).

As for it's impact, I am one of those who feel it's going to be big news and a big deal. As someone with a lot of retail and tourism sales experience, I can assure you that the consumer anxiety of moving from Windows does not have to be large, only real, to raise just enough doubt with some potential Mac switchers to stay the course for just one more hardware upgrade cycle.

Now, that is gone. I can see many repercussions; in no particular order and without any real attempt to be complete:

It will affect many people contemplating new hardware, especially laptops (the "second computer") but also many corporate/government users.

If the employer has any programs or finance options that will pay or help buy a laptop or PC, you can now choose Apple hardware easily.

The FBI can now buy MacTel portables, so that powerpoint can be used with presentations and the general interoperability with typical systems used by other agencies and the public will be seamless (the reason FBI's field personnel use Wintel Laptops) and they will also seamlessly integrate with the internal FBI network (which is all Macintosh). Just one example.

It's a huge boost to the Macintosh AntiVirus industry. It's also a real opportunity to develop tools that were not practical or really had no earthly use until now: field personnel for IT departments and Windows troubleshooters everywhere can see the advantage of a dual boot laptop for fixing broken or infected Windows installations.

The other major thing is people will begin to see what some of the subtle differences, so obvious to us all, are. The first time Software Update is run, expect people to finally start to realize why they hate Windows, or perhaps even begin to realize they do hate Microsoft. It's tremendous pressure on Redmond; now they have to innovate the little things too, instead of the old "let them eat cake" attitude.

As for " ... Did VirtualPC already die, or is this its grim reaper? ...", yes, it was already dead. Microsoft had said they would not be introducing a version of VPC for MacTel. This is a shot across the bow, because it was obvious that MS was afraid of dual boot (see reasons in previous paragraph). The only real reason Redmond could drum up for it's users to avoid MacTel (see following paragraph) is not, ahem, a product advantage, and couldn't be said out loud by those touting the party line.

On the dark side, it's a dangerous step on the malware road. I see no reason why a Windows surfer running IE could not have Active-X install malware on the Mac partiton, targeting OSX. Getting it installed was always the part that made the black hats reluctant to make any Mac exploits, no matter what you may have heard in the way of feeble justification for the differences. Well, that barrier is gone now (and it does reveal the truth about how and most importantly why Windows is so often the target; the market share myth truly and finally exposed).


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

What won't the movie publishing industry love? I don't think I follow your point.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Requires Service Pack 2  Well there goes that plan to use my old copy of XP Pro. Oh well. Who wants a $240 coaster? lol


----------



## wayner (May 21, 2005)

*Windoze*

Not to mention the $250 for a shrinkwrapped copy of XP Pro if you don't already have one.

Seems like a nice to be able to do if I really had to, but why would I really want to?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> What won't the movie publishing industry love? I don't think I follow your point.


They "are" gonna love it because people will be able to make animation on either platform, 
I would love to be able run 3 D Studio Max on a Mac.

D


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Can you install Win XP onto an external Firewire drive and not partition your intel Mac hard drive?

That's what I'd want to do.

D


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

dona83 said:


> Requires Service Pack 2  Well there goes that plan to use my old copy of XP Pro. Oh well. Who wants a $240 coaster? lol


No, no, no!!! Just run a slipstream upgrade on the disc, and burn a new image....
http://www.helpwithwindows.com/WindowsXP/winxp-sp2-bootcd.html

I think this is a good step, though I'm sure a lot of software vendors that were on the fence for offering Mac drivers may have decided 'who cares' now. That might be a bit sad.

Can't wait for the PowerMac replacements this fall... maybe a year from now, I'll do an upgrade, and ditch the ol' P4 that has served me so well.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

dolawren said:


> Can you install Win XP onto an external Firewire drive and not partition your intel Mac hard drive?
> 
> That's what I'd want to do.
> 
> D


Can't boot from an external firewire drive on Windows XP.


----------



## jkojima (Dec 31, 2002)

If someone owns an iMac or Macbook and tries this, I'd like to hear how the graphics drivers work out and whether 3D games can be played with good performance.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

We will be doing fairly extensive testing of that tomorrow.


----------



## pollux (May 1, 2000)

Now I am thinking about selling my 1 month old PC and get a Intel MacMini and let it run XP & OS X


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

jicon said:


> Can't boot from an external firewire drive on Windows XP.


Well that sucks...
How about if you put your Mac OS onto an external Firewire drive then installed Win XP on the Intel Mac?

Would that work?

I hate sharing hard drives.

D


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

i wonder how "big" a news this is? Here we all know it's fairly important (hell freezing over remarks), but is it really that "big"? Maybe nothing will significaly change, maybe it's a hinge in computer history, maybe is the begining of something really bad. i guess time will tell.

right now i just regret having the 2 imacs that can't do this..................or mayyyyybe..............tomorrow i 'll be the sole survivor...... mua ha ha?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

dolawren said:


> Well that sucks...


Well we ARE talking about Windows here... as Apple said they're stuck back in the 80's. 




dolawren said:


> I'm not going to do it on my iMac.... but I can see why some people would want it.


Top 5 reason Mac users are eager to install Windows:

5. They want to play Half-Life.
4. They want to experience windows so they know what they're not missing.
3. They want to see how the other half (95%) live. 
2. They want to see what a virus is.
1. Porn.

It is interesting that Apple did this, it's a win-win. Apple gives switchers the one thing they've always wanted, a safety-net if they come over to the Mac. Apple sells another Mac. And Microsoft still sells a copy of their OS, at least for now.


----------



## kkapoor (Jan 17, 2006)

An 8% rise in stock price shows the significance of this.


----------



## joltguy (Apr 15, 2005)

dona83 said:


> For me, it's all about NHL 06


My thoughts exactly!!!


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

rhythms said:


> it's almost a death knell for porting games over to Mac. Other than Mac only game developers, I'm not sure that going forward there's much market for Mac ports anymore.


If that were true, it would have happened years ago. You can probably buy a PC for the cost of Windows.

There will always be a market for Mac ports of games just like there is a Market for Mac applications. The ability to install Windows on a Mac will be used as a safety net by switchers. They'll slowly transition from using Windows apps/games to Mac apps/games. Besides, who wants to reboot all the time.

If nothing we've seen more game ports with OS X and probably even more now that we have Intel Macs.


----------



## pcronin (Feb 20, 2005)

Kosh said:


> 1. Porn.


I'm sorry? my ibook is chock full of.... um... yeah... need a PC for that... Porn Computer 
never on my mac


----------



## Harvey (Oct 9, 2005)

I just ‘pitched’ a iMac to my wife for her birthday present (she loves it’s looks), instead of a Dell box that I intended to get for her.

Regards
From Ottawa
Harvey


----------



## Aero (Mar 2, 2006)

i dont think gov't and corp can use macbook pro, it has a built in isight. so gov and corp office prohibits camera right.


----------



## saxamaphone (May 18, 2004)

This seems huge to me. I have to keep at least one windows machine, it might as well be an elegantly designed beautiful and silent mac! I have a shuttle SN85G4 or G5. anyways its a nice small box running a decent athlon xp. but that SOB is loud, it gets sooo hot, it is a major pain in the ass to upgrade. it isnt cheap either, outfitting it put the price tag at about a grand. the only saving grace is that it is smaller than a full sized pc, about the size of a large shoebox.

give me a dualcore intel mini anyday and ill get that iogear kvm and stack them on top of my g4 mini. the size of a stack of CD's... Desktop Reclaimed!!


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

in wrong thread... don't know how.


----------



## kent (Oct 18, 2003)

This is momentous news. We have to remember that Apple is a "hardware company" and OSX is merely the software that enables us to use the hardware. This of course was their mistake early on and the reason why Microsoft soared. However, as the Mac OS matured people now see the merits and sophistication of the Mac OS, but you can only get it on a Mac [which was a smart move by Apple - not to license]. Now people have the ultimate in flexibility ... which no one else can offer. You will never be able to run OSX on a DELL [easily]. So now the question is: why would anyone buy a DELL or a Gateway ...? Apple couldn't care less which OS you run on their hardware. A brilliant business move. Will I install Windows on a Mac ever: maybe ... for certain apps I need from time to time, but I love OSX and moved over in 2003 ... I am never going back.


----------



## TripleX (Nov 6, 2002)

From what I can gather on the uber geek sites, the firmware update actually enables the Mac Intel to run XP. Boot camp is simply an easy way for users to apply the proper windows drivers.


----------



## Mrsam (Jan 14, 2006)

I don't really see the appeal of installing windows on a mac...I switched to get away from windows!


----------



## DP004 (Mar 9, 2005)

Mr Mayor, please add a new section for: Window problems on MacIntels (and why both OS are now screwed-up) and get a new server. Or two.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

LOL,

I wonder once the "sober second thought" comes in, how many people will rush to compromise thier Mac's security with Windows?


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... i dont think gov't and corp can use macbook pro, it has a built in isight. so gov and corp office prohibits camera right. ..."

Actually, the camera/microphone for teleconferencing is really a business application that has trickled down to home users; corporate and government want that technology and use it more than you might believe.

If you're thinking of the here and now (MacBooks, Minis and iMacs being the only Intel chipped Macs right now) the camera might be a problem for widespread deployment. But, no business or government IT department is going to deploy any Beta software on mission critical machines or run out and buy Macs this afternoon, based on the simple availability of BootCamp.

The real news is that Apple has announced it will be part of 10.5 and will work on every future Intel Macintosh. Since big organizations not only act like elephants, they move like them, it means it's now part of the options for the future. When they're ready to do whatever, a year or more from now, this is now on the radar. Minis and Desktop Macs are unlikely to have cameras built in, and for any truly large organization, Apple will custom build; that includes custom delete (that's how the xServe Cluster edition came about; it's essentially what Virginia Tech wanted and Apple said, sure, we'll make 'em that way for you).

Geeks at IT are increasingly picking up PowerBooks and now MacBook Pros, just cuz. You can be sure they will be beta testing on the MacBook if they have one, though. They just can't help it ;-)


----------



## DS (Oct 7, 2004)

It's pretty cool that they're actually "supporting" it in a sense, encouraging it.

Having said that, this isn't really a big deal for many people, myself included. I've been dual booting OS X and Windows for more than 6 months now on my PC that I built specifically for that purpose.

It cost less than $1000, and it outperforms any of Apple's retail offerings and so far offers all of the features. I'll be upgrading to a dual core setup shortly and pushing the performance envelope even further. 

Having said that, I currently own a PowerBook, have owned tons of Mac hardware in the past, and I will be buying a MacBook once they sort the kinks out with it, simply because Apple always makes such beautiful machines. I just like the "enthusiast" side of things as well.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Camera +







= no problem


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2006)

I think this is a really big deal on a few fronts. I've read (mostly) all the comments to this point. A couple of things I'll comment on:

*support*: Call microsoft, you can buy support from them. There are also many 3rd party support companies that are surfacing and starting to make more money as well. This can springboard a whole new offshoot. Windows support for mac users. ( It would be nice for a support person to default by saying "go to your dock" instead of "click your start button" as soon as you ask a question LOL )

*microsoft concerns*: Are you kidding? NONE. More $$ == good. When one of the biggest competing OS's hardware vendor makes their hardware run your OS as well it's never a bad thing. In this case the hardware and OS vendor are the same company, Apple. 

*Picture this secnerio*: This is purely fictional and for deomstrational purposes only. Please don't flame me telling me this will never happen. OSX gains a win32 runtine that works very well. Apple plays all the cards right, and all the planets line up (or whatever else has to happen for somethign like this to occur) ... M$ being very business smart decides to license out win32, officially. Make it run on all *nix based platforms (with help from each vendor of course as needed), for the low low cost to the end consumer of $100 (the price of the windows OS), and in typical M$ fashion +developers, +distributors, +whoever else they can get a piece of the pie from. They retain their stranglehold on the industry and don't even have to worry about plugging their aging/hole filled OS any longer and just keep developing win32, and applications based on it. 

*Picture this secnerio*: Apple is rumored to be resurrecting Yellow Box, i.e. a windows OS based Cocoa runtime. In other words the opposite of win32 above. Running OSX applications on windows. Not a surprising move when you consider the amount of the legwork involved in developing iTunes and Quicktime into windows. 

Maybe Dvorak wasn't so far off in concept with his prediction that Apple would be "moving to windows", just a little off target in the grand scheme of things.

Food for thought. Only Steve and Bill know what's going on for sure .. and maybe some of those intel charectors.

Last comment: Bring on virtualization at the hardware level, which is what seems to be promised. It will really blur the seams between OS realities and would be a fantastic kick in the ass for the industry. I can remove a lot of boundaries that users are forced to deal with in a day and age when this is becoming less and less of a concern.


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

I wonder where this will leave Geniuses. 

H!


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

I've merged the two threads to simplify matters and keep the topic of BootCamp together.


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

Just read a BC thread @ the Apple boards. Only 1 kernel panic so far:



> Just letting you all know I tried this on my macbook pro. It kernal paniced when I clicked 'restart' to install windows later and now it won't boot. I can't repair my disk with a the os x startup either as it says 'invalid extent entry'. Single user mode gives the same error. I also see 'xxxxx is not linked to a kernal' errors all over the place in SU mode.
> 
> Had to reformat completely. The OS X partition was unmountable and even reformatting the new windows partition to HFS journaled wouldn't let me install OS X on it.
> 
> MacBook Pro 2.16 ghz Mac OS X (10.4.6)


Where are the Indiana Jones, Evil Kneivels here?? No more comments from the adventurous???

Would this be considered a *re-switch*?? Will Mr Softee Billy Gates take the credit for it? LOL.

BTW, the *Apple stock is up almost 10% - $6.02*.

H!


----------



## Blood_Lust (Sep 7, 2003)

I've heard from a friend that it's been hacked now and you Macbook pro is capable of running Windows Vista when it comes out. :clap::clap:


----------



## Apple101 (Jan 22, 2006)

Apples hardware able to run Windows XP is cool!! I had a chance to try it my self at co-op and Windows is frigin fast on a Mac. 

The PC companies are probably saying ooooh sh*t!

I am going to try and find a link for you guys that actually states that Windows performs significantly better on a Mac then a PC originally designed for Windows. Also I would like to make it clear that although you can install Windows XP (with no SP2) on the disc, you cannot install Windows XP SP2 after the installation. You must have a Windows XP disc that already has SP2 on it.

I still wouldnt want it on my Mac though


----------



## Apple101 (Jan 22, 2006)

*Update*

heres one of the links...

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1617

theres more but i gotta find them.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Apple101 said:


> Apples hardware able to run Windows XP is cool!! I had a chance to try it my self and Windows is frigin fast on a Mac.
> 
> The PC companies are probably saying ooooh sh*t!
> 
> I am going to try and find a link for you guys that actually states that Windows performs significantly better on a Mac then a PC originally designed for Windows.


I don't see why Apple build computers would run XP faster than *comparable* PC hardware. There is nothing magical in Apple hardware.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Then I guess with Windows XP on a Mac you'll need to get Quicktime for Windows.

D


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

Apple101 said:


> Apples hardware able to run Windows XP is cool!! I had a chance to try it my self and Windows is frigin fast on a Mac.
> 
> The PC companies are probably saying ooooh sh*t!
> 
> I am going to try and find a link for you guys that actually states that Windows performs significantly better on a Mac then a PC originally designed for Windows. Also I would like to make it clear that although you can install Windows XP (with no SP2) on the disc, you cannot install Windows XP SP2 after the installation. You must have a Windows XP disc that already has SP2 on it.


are you saying that you cannot update the winxp installed on your mac to sp2 after the install is complete? why is that? what about allthe other security updates? why would it be any different than any pc running winxp? you should be able to just download the sp2 (220 meg standalone download if memory serves) and install it, what have they done that would stop this from working?
If there is some reason why you can not update after the fact, is that reason also going to stop you from doing other windows updates of which there are TONS all the time?


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> re you saying that you cannot update the winxp installed on your mac to sp2 after the install is complete? why is that? what about allthe other security updates? why would it be any different than any pc running winxp? you should be able to just download the sp2 (220 meg standalone download if memory serves) and install it, what have they done that would stop this from working?
> If there is some reason why you can not update after the fact, is that reason also going to stop you from doing other windows updates of which there are TONS all the time?


Apple makes it quite clear that these are 2 separate things:
1. You can only use Boot Camp with a version of XP that already has SP2.
2. You are strongly advised (by Apple) to make sure that you keep XP updated with relevant patches, updates etc

Read through the Apple Boot Camp page, and linked pages
http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

AH! AH!
Didn't see that one coming, Michael Dell??? BANG! Oh my God!
Like a teen says : OWNED!
Right in the face.


Macdailynews said:


> Oh, so one could buy a Mac and run both Windows and Mac OS X or buy a Dell and only be able to run Windows. Muahahahahah! So, can anyone explain why would anyone in their right mind would buy a Dell or any other Wintel box assembler's kit again? This is shaping up to become a "license Mac OS X or die" problem for the Dells of the world. But, what if Steve Jobs doesn't feel like licensing Mac OS X? Checkmate. Is it too early to suggest that Michael Dell shut down the company and give the money back to shareholders?


So true!
Such a smart move!! Oh my God! I can't even begin to applaud Steve Jobs for his genious.


Macdailynews said:


> The war isn't over until there's a surrender.


Nope, and with this new card in Apple's hand, it seems like that's a strong one.
You can bet I'll enjoy every little moment of that fight. 
Things are becoming really...really...really interesting.
My friend has no more reason to buy a PC. I switched him . That makes...2!


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Well.. I've done it. Let me tell you.. it was simple and quite nice. XP does run really fast, comparable to any newer machine I would assume. DISPLAY drivers are nice.. although, I can't get my extended desktop to work properly... (yet)

All in all.. Apple did it their usual way.. RFS!


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

Vexel said:


> Well.. I've done it. Let me tell you.. it was simple and quite nice. XP does run really fast, comparable to any newer machine I would assume. DISPLAY drivers are nice.. although, I can't get my extended desktop to work properly... (yet)
> 
> All in all.. Apple did it their usual way.. RFS!


Vexel, can you extend your desktop with an iMac? I reckon you can't.
Just wait until Spanning Screen Doctor is ported to Windows...Never thought I'd say that.


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

Pelao said:


> Apple makes it quite clear that these are 2 separate things:
> 1. You can only use Boot Camp with a version of XP that already has SP2.
> 2. You are strongly advised (by Apple) to make sure that you keep XP updated with relevant patches, updates etc
> 
> ...


sorry, guess i wasn't too clear - i read through the install info and i realize they said you cannot do it, but there is no explanation as to why. how is the partition created by boot camp any different than a partition created on any harddrive? i'm racking my brain trying to think of what was added in SP2 that would be necessary to run winxp on a mac-intel.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

DBerG sig said:


> License Mac OS X or DIE!!!


Does your sig mean for Apple to sell OS X able to run on ANY PC? If they did that, they WOULD die.


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

Macaholic said:


> Does your sig mean for Apple to sell OS X able to run on ANY PC? If they did that, they WOULD die.


Sorry, it's a Macdailynews quote, let me adapt it.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

DBerG said:


> Vexel, can you extend your desktop with an iMac? I reckon you can't.
> Just wait until Spanning Screen Doctor is ported to Windows...Never thought I'd say that.


Actually, DBerG. Apple built it into the new Intel iMacs. I use it in OS X everyday.


----------



## Ian Seyler (Nov 15, 2002)

I just got Windows XP Pro SP2 installed on my 20" iMac. Everything seems to be working fine but it is kind of odd to see it running on a Mac. The driver installs went smoothly and I have already installed Quake 4. It runs decent at 800x600 in High detail mode. Soon I'll try Half-Life 2.

-Ian


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

Vexel said:


> Actually, DBerG. Apple built it into the new Intel iMacs. I use it in OS X everyday.


Great move! It's right about time they stop limiting that stuff!


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 21, 2004)

Vexel said:


> .. although, I can't get my extended desktop to work properly... (yet)


Does Windows have extended desktop capability? My longterm windows-using friend had never heard of the concept till I told him I was doing it with my Mac - had to explain to him what it meant and everything.

I tried running the Boot Camp program and it said it was unable to do it's thing to my hard drive, but didn't say why. I've already got two partitions though - boot partition is HFS+ and second partition is Unix, so maybe that was the problem?

I'm not really interested in dual-boot anyhow, I'm more interested in something like Darwine, to get the occasional windows program to just boot and run within OS X, or X-windows, or whatever. I had VirtualPC but didn't realize it wouldn't work when I switched to the intel iMac. Not that I miss it much - toooo s.l...o...wwww....

-Stephanie


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Ian Seyler said:


> I'll try Half-Life 2.
> -Ian


Half-Life looks awesome. Always wanted to try it. Man, this opens up a whole _NEW WORLD_. :greedy:


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

Macaholic said:


> Half-Life looks awesome. Always wanted to try it. Man, this opens up a whole _NEW WORLD_. :greedy:


Hehe! It was my world not so long ago. I don't want to visit it again until....the next decade...?!


----------



## milhaus (Jun 1, 2004)

Installed on my MacBook Pro. Took approx. 1 hour; mostly the install time for Windows. Biggest issue was getting around the inability to upgrade to SP2; I had to slip stream SP2 into the SP1 disc I had, and then it was pretty easy. Partitioned 12 gigs to Windows, running very speedily right now. 

I've got to give Apple some serious props for making what seemed like a fairly difficult project easy as 1-2-3. But then again, that's that they're known for. 

I suspect that I'll spend a few weeks fiddling with my XP install until it's just right, and then never use it again . . . ;-) but the point is that I can . . .


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

I'm another who just feels the need to say that although I think this is a brilliant marketing move by Apple, and it will bring many over to the Apple side, I will not be installing any version of Windows on my Mac now, or in the future.

I use a Mac because I prefer Apple hardware and software.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

just think of all the new mac purchases from those for whom it DOES make a difference....

wonder what else steve-o has up his sleeve....?
accelerated release of leopard?
macintel xserver w/ boot camp to run M$ server sfw.?

paging michael dell - the repo men are here


----------



## Derrick (Dec 22, 2004)

SoyMac said:


> I'm another who just feels the need to say that although I think this is a brilliant marketing move by Apple, and it will bring many over to the Apple side, I will not be installing any version of Windows on my Mac now, or in the future.
> 
> I use a Mac because I prefer Apple hardware and software.


I feel the same way ... I don't have a need for Windows.

I heard a statement earlier this evening which I think best summarizes the reason behind 'Boot Camp' ... Apple did this for Windows users, not Mac users.

I think it is a brilliant move ... especially now that Vista is delayed (again).


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Myradon (May 13, 2005)

Dialog

"So wife, they've released an update so you can put windows on your mac"
"Oh."
"Now would you want me to do that for any reason"
"Well, I suppose I'd be nice to play Heroes of Might an magic 3"
"Yes, and i could use it for... My knock off photoshop program"
"Seems like a lot of trouble, if it's not broken, don;t fix it"

Right about what I was htinking. In our house it makes no sense to add XP to a computer that runs efficiently and achives everything we need. Well with the exception of six year old software.


----------



## Garry (Jan 27, 2002)

*Someone Explain this to me..*

OK.. maybe I'm missing something here..

In the past, I've gone on NUMEROUS boards, where mac users have done nothing but slam Microsoft and their products. Now, Apple is allowing you to use the very same products people have slammed, and you practically need diapers for mac users that WANT to use Windows, they're peeing themselves with joy..

I guess I just don't see a need for windows on a mac. Altho' I don't play games.. I use my mac to be productive and all...

What am I missing here, besides the obvious Game Authors deciding it isn't worth porting their products to mac, and Adobe & Microsoft seeing this as an "out" to not creating Mac Versions of their software anymore?


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

*HUGS MY PPC PB*

I'm not gonna let you go forever and ever...

Its going to be awhile before I think about buying a new intel mac..

Profits are clouding Apples mind right now, I think I'd rather keep my PPC mac or buy into a faster PPC before I'd consider going towards a intel mac. Just doesn't seem logical.

I was thinking of building a PC and dreading the thought of using XP but the thought of XP on my Mac.. or the possibility of the transformation of virus's/spamware/adware/ and all that other crap jumping over.. the possible corruption just sounds to flaky.

Your either a Mac user on a Mac or a PC user on a PC. Not both on the same machine. You could use both on two machines but just not on the same for the sake of keeping MacOSX pure... its a sad sad day..


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Garry said:


> OK.. maybe I'm missing something here..
> 
> In the past, I've gone on NUMEROUS boards, where mac users have done nothing but slam Microsoft and their products. Now, Apple is allowing you to use the very same products people have slammed, and you practically need diapers for mac users that WANT to use Windows, they're peeing themselves with joy..
> 
> ...


OK. You are still on a board where most people will slam Microsoft products. It's for the simple fact that we love OS X and love Apple products... it's fair game. 

However, Some of us will Pee ourselves with Joy because it's a solution for having 1 computer for both needs instead of 2. Some of us actually work in the business of using both OS X and Windows. What happens here.. is. We can finally be "Productive" with just ONE machine. It doesn't make us LOVE Windows any more than we did before.. in fact.. I still hate XP.

Here's what I think is going to happen.. and why it's a smart move on Apple's side:

You think Adobe is going to stop making software for the Mac? I don't think so. What's going to happen is all the PC users that really wanted to use OS X can finally do it without any issue. It's completely compatible with their current and future software on the Windows platform.. while giving them the opportunity to run OS X too.

How do you think "most" people are going to react once they've used OS X? My bet is on Windows falling behind.. more and more. Therefore, creating more OS X users adding to the install base and adding to the Marketshare. Once this is in effect, Why would Adobe stop making software for the Mac?? Eventually, if Apple plays their cards right.. you'll see more things moving to the Mac if you ask me.

Apple has put OS X in the playground with the bully XP. OS X already has the swingset.. now, we're going for the Sandbox too!


----------



## JPL (Jan 21, 2005)

I use both platforms on separate machines and as far as I am concerned it's going to stay that way. I would not consider installing XP on a Mac with all its vulnerabilities. I would be concerned that those attacks might somehow infiltrate into the Mac side and corrupt its flawless operation. This may or may not be the case, but that is my concern. Until that is made crystal clear they will remain separate.

I do however, think this is a brilliant marketing move on Apples part. I just hope they don't shoot themselves in the foot again by not being able to deliver the quantities of machines which I think will be required. When the "buy" decision has been made and the product is a six month wait, most will look elsewhere particularly businesses.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Vexel said:


> Apple has put OS X in the playground with the bully XP. OS X already has the swingset.. now, we're going for the Sandbox too!


lol, I like this.


----------



## ender78 (Jan 23, 2005)

Vexel said:


> I can't get my extended desktop to work properly... (yet)


Mine works great on my MacBook Pro. You may also want to download Hydravision from ATI's website. It provides some cool features for desktop spanning [applications remember where they were launched]. I did have some issue with regards to XP knowing what the max resolutions were for the various monitors. My MacBook and Mini did a better job detecting the Dell 2405 than did Windows XP.

On a side note, I had no issues at all with Windows update. My machine is 100% up to date on patches.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Interesting poll in the Globe & mail: would B C make you more likely to buy a Mac?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

>>Now, Apple is allowing you to use the very 
>>same products people have slammed, and you 
>> practically need diapers for mac users that 
>>WANT to use Windows, they're peeing themselves with joy..

Oh man do I agree. They're going to have to install new drains along ehMac floors to carry this spontaneous flood of joyous excreta. They all have their own special reason why they have wanted Windows to run on a Mac all along. 

>>You think Adobe is going to stop making software for the Mac? 
>>I don't think so

I sure think they'll test the waters on releasing single versions of software. They'll just have to watch this pants-wetting session at ehMac. A single version of the next Photoshop release? "Wow, at last only one common version of software! I'm REALLY peeing my pants with joy now! No more price discrepancies! No more lag time in product development between platforms! One version of software will work for all of my clients! This is what I've been waiting for! Please have another Mac user pinch me--I'm going to XP heaven!"


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

This is kinda odd in the end. This is still momentous news, but in who's favor??

The Street is saying that it's positive news. They had a few reasons, but I want to read more 1st.

BTW, *TODAY during Power Lunch* CNBC will be running a piece on Boot Camp and it's effect. Anyone near a TV should watch this. Jobs has been known grant CNBC interviews to talk about Apple commerce and their landscape of s/w and h/w.

Might be a good one. Starts @ 12.

H!


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

MacFury et al: Ease up, kids. Here's the deal:

If some people out there are happy with Windows, they won't be coming NEAR a Mac, Boot Camp or no. Likewise, those that DO use OS X and have no need nor desire to run Windows on their Mac will STILL buy those OS X licenses. Generally, the world will go on as it has.

Those that are swayed by the dual-boot prospect will NOT want to use a Windows version of ANYTHING, because the point of buying a Mac is to use OS X. Therefore, software sales on the Mac side should continue if not increase as more people presumably will be more comfortable in jumping over the fence given this new safety net for them.

And that's a big reason why I'm glad to see this occur. There are people out there interested in switching, but have investments in Windows compatible software licenses. Now, they can still utilize them, crossgrade when it makes sense and eventually thin out their Windows software library. And, for those who ALREADY need to use Windows but WANT to (and in fact actually do) use OS X, they can now do it on ONE hardware platform.

Me? I have no need for it. But regardless of that I and many here see how the Mac's added dexterity will only bring more people to the platform, and that's good news for the incumbent userbase.


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

i for one am very excited about the news of running windows on a mac, but how long is it going to work? apple's statement...

"run the Windows XP operating system on your Mac. Called Boot Camp (for now), you can download a public beta today."

What do they mean by "(for now)"? time limited beta maybe?

As far as why people are so excited, my reasons are simple. One computer instead of needing two. I can finally stop using VPC which is dead dog slow with some programs. I can also take home some of my work (when needed) and run the programs that are windows only, that i use everyday at work.

sure i'll have to worry about viruses on the window's partition, but how is that any different than worrying about them now with my copy of VPC?


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

Headz up.

Short Engadget piece on WSJ writer and his experience and verdict on Boot Camp.

H!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ahhh, Macaholic, I know perfectly well WHY Apple is doing this. But it has tainted the brand in my book. Apple had a sense of "otherness" that supplied it with tremendous appeal for me. 

Whatever Apple is becoming isn't so interesting. I don't blame them for kowtowing to the bottom line, but this just has a bad smell about it.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

thatcomputerguy said:


> "run the Windows XP operating system on your Mac. Called Boot Camp (for now), you can download a public beta today."
> 
> What do they mean by "(for now)"? time limited beta maybe?



Wow.

Apple is saying it's "called Boot Camp (for now)." They may change the name next week, perhaps to "I'd Like to Buy a Vowel, Pat," or "I'll Take Paul Lynde to Block."


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

NY Times piece. Would have linked it, but you may have to register.


> Windows or Mac? Apple Says Both
> 
> 
> By JOHN MARKOFF
> ...


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

HowEver said:


> Wow.
> 
> Apple is saying it's "called Boot Camp (for now)." They may change the name next week, perhaps to "I'd Like to Buy a Vowel, Pat," or "I'll Take Paul Lynde to Block."


LMAO! 

Yeah, Apple says that this functionality will be incorpoirated within Leopard. Although the "time limited" beta aspect of Boot Camp should prevent users from going "mission critical" with Boot Camp and formally dumping their "Windows" hardware (because you never know until the golden master release), the prevailing attitude from Cupertino is that this will eventually be permanant.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Macfury said:


> ahhh, Macaholic, I know perfectly well WHY Apple is doing this. But it has tainted the brand in my book. Apple had a sense of "otherness" that supplied it with tremendous appeal for me.
> 
> Whatever Apple is becoming isn't so interesting. I don't blame them for kowtowing to the bottom line, but this just has a bad smell about it.


Well, to me this is another (albeit big) step consistant with what they've been doing with Mac OS X since the get-go, and that is to make OS X as diverse and flexible as possible. There's no way they'll do any pie-in-the-sky move some (not you, typically paid pundits out there) spout of becoming a Windows PC maker and forsaking OS X, but the "walled garden" of days gone by in Cupertino is being rolled over to make way for "The Nexus".


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

Macaholic said:


> LMAO!
> 
> Yeah, Apple says that this functionality will be incorpoirated within Leopard. Although the "time limited" beta aspect of Boot Camp should prevent users from going "mission critical" with Boot Camp and formally dumping their "Windows" hardware (because you never know until the golden master release), the prevailing attitude from Cupertino is that this will eventually be permanant.


that's my question - is the general consensus that this is a time-limited beta, or not. do you think there will be updates to the beta as problems arise, or will apple just gather info and tweak the final "gold" version?


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Who knows? if you feel you should tread carefully, then indeed do tread carefully


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Ohenri said:


> Headz up.


_MY EYES!! MY EYES!!_


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

LMAO!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RwHMIxdDdu8


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Macaholic said:


> http://youtube.com/watch?v=RwHMIxdDdu8


Ahahaha! Good one, Macaholic! At first I thought, "Doesn't he know this ad has been around for a while?!"
:lmao:


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

^^^^^^^

Macaholic, that is a great one!



> The move was greeted with exuberance even among the loyal cult of Macintosh enthusiasts who sustained Apple through many bleak years before its resurgence on the strength of its iPod music player. I.


I would have questioned this claim previous to this poll, but this seems to be the norm. I do think it's interesting, but the very fact that Apple will no support this is more than telling - it's a warning shot almost... 



> Apple said Wednesday that it planned to make the Boot Camp capability a standard feature of the next version of OS X, which is expected to be introduced later this year or in early 2007.


Hmmm. How many PC-wanna-be-Mac-users are not going to read into this correctly, thinking that they will get XP with their next purchase of a Mac-OSX.

H!


----------



## planders (Jun 24, 2005)

As someone who has been working on both platforms for the past year, I can say that Boot Camp pretty much guarantees that my next computer purchase will be whatever Intel Mac replaces the Power Mac, loaded with RAM and the biggest hard disk I can get. Much better, I suspect, than settling for an iMac and a Dell.

I'm using my iMac G5 for at least 80% of my computing these days, but I have no choice but to fall back on my two-year-old PC for my AV work (so sue me, I haven't found anything on the Mac that suits me as well as Sound Forge, Vegas, and ACID). If I could run those on a Mac in Windows, along with the ability to use my Echo Layla 3G in both operating systems on the same computer, I'd be able to sell off about half the hardware in my work room.

My mantra has always been "use the right tool for the job." I truly don't care which operating system I'm in on a day-to-day basis--I use applications. If some applications I need work only in OS X, fine. If they're Windows-only, so be it.

The funny thing about the worries people are expressing about Windows vulnerabilities suddenly affecting Mac users is that those of us with the knowledge and tools required to make Boot Camp work are probably knowledgeable enough as computer users that there will be relatively few problems. My Windows PCs (four of them) are rock-solid stable and have never been affected by anything nasty that was going around; I fully expect the same experience on a dual boot Mac.

In fact, an Intel Mac will probably make for a fabulous Windows PC, because it benefits from what has always been Apple's chief advantage: top-quality components that are designed from the ground up to work well together. In my experience, the vast majority of Windows PC problems can be directly traced to hardware issues stemming from poorly integrated components.

All in all, this is a great day for those of us who need or want to use both operating systems, as well as for those who find Mac appealing but are on the fence. It might appeal to that group of customers targeted by Dell in the good old days: the knowledgeable second-time buyer. No new user is going to pay a premium for Apple hardware only to run Windows, but lots of experienced PC users these days are less resistant to Macs and this might well push them over the edge. And for Mac users considering a second computer to run Windows, this lets them avoid buying a beige box.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Install Vista on a Macintel??

Not without a full backup, first 

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Orchant/?p=63

Stay tuned...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Macaholic said:


> Those that are swayed by the dual-boot prospect will NOT want to use a Windows version of ANYTHING, because the point of buying a Mac is to use OS X.


They may soon not have much of a choice. I believe that Mac software developers are now presented with a huge opportunity to tackle a much bigger market share than the Mac niche that they now play in. Why should they be content with a measly 3-4% of the potential software market when they can go after the whole enchilada?

On the other side of the coin, why would any Windows software developer even bother looking to develop or port any of their apps for the Mac side now? They can now say that if a user wants to user their app they can purchase the Windows version.


----------



## sammy (Oct 12, 2002)

*maybe that's why...*

Maybe Avie left in such a hurry, because he couldn't stand by and watch his baby get sullied by allowing XP a piggy back ride.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

This is a quote that I found from another Mac board:



> Brad Oliver of Aspyr Media offers these thoughts:
> 
> "From a business standpoint, I suspect Aspyr is, in the short term, going to continue releasing Mac ports as before and see where the market takes us. If Mac sales tank, we've got enough revenue coming in from PC and console ports that it probably won't hurt the company too much and we'd just focus on the other platforms. It's possible that the Mac market share could increase so dramatically that the demand for Mac games increases enough to offset the costs of the loss of sales to dual-booting, but *I'm not so optimistic* about that."


Right after the Intel news, a friend of mine said that Apple will most likely ditch OS X because the Windows market is just so much bigger and, if the Mac app developers leave, that is what will happen whether Apple likes it or not.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

IronMac said:


> Right after the Intel news, a friend of mine said that Apple will most likely ditch OS X because the Windows market is just so much bigger and, if the Mac app developers leave, that is what will happen whether Apple likes it or not.


That's "Trojan Horse and Buggy" thinking

D


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

dolawren said:


> That's "Trojan Horse and Buggy" thinking
> 
> D


LOL! I wanted to use the Trojan Horse analogy but nowhere is it appropriate.

I made a prediction a couple of years back where I said that Apple will no longer be selling personal computers within ten years. (It was on this board.) I was about 1-2 years into my prediction back then so, in 6 years or so, Apple will no longer be selling personal computers. 

The prediction's coming along nicely since the company seems to be more focused on the iPod and it's shooting itself in the foot with this Boot Camp initiative.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> They may soon not have much of a choice. I believe that Mac software developers are now presented with a huge opportunity to tackle a much bigger market share than the Mac niche that they now play in. Why should they be content with a measly 3-4% of the potential software market when they can go after the whole enchilada?


I don't necessarily disagree, but with market share %-ages there is a lot more to look at than the Mac share of the total market. The question is, for any market - what is the total potential market for your product? The of course - how can you carve out a nich so your marketing costs are low and your exposure to competion is lessened?

Market share % is only part of the story. Sure, you may be able to tackle a bigger pond, but then there are lots more fish for the customers to choose from. It all depends on how large the 3-4% is in total numbers _within your niche_.

If you are a small developer with a good app or two for Macs there is a good chance you will get lots of good coverage for little or no cost within the Mac community. Your marketing costs are lower, and there is possibly less competition. 

For some apps Macs represent way more than 3-4% of the market, particularly in creative fields.

For some, it is better to have a low cost shot at 50% of the Mac share rather than a higher cost shot at a larger market with many more competitors.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Yep, that's true. It can come down to the particular application and your target segment. For example, the best text editor for the Mac is BBEdit, and I think that they've got a great shot at taking on the Windows market with a dual-platform offering. They've got a great rep on the Mac side and they can build on that if they move into the Windows' arena. For them to achieve even the same number of sales on the Windows side as they have on the Mac side means a doubling of sales. That's NOT small change!


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

anyone know if i could boot Win2k3 instead of WinXP? i migrated from Win2k to 2k3 and don't really want to use XP. depending on what the answer is, i may or may not ditch my Mac Mini, which i consider to have made little use of since i purchased it a little over a year ago, and buy myself a MBP.

in my opinion, this will be the death of alot of "cross platform" native apps for OS X. i forsee companies foregoing porting apps to OS X that already run in Windows.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... if the Mac app developers leave, that is what will happen whether Apple likes it or not. ..."

Mac developers aren't going anywhere, and neither are OSX applications. The only people who are going to shell out $ 120~360 for a copy of XP are the same people who have always had to, because they have to run something like Virtual PC, or those who already own a copy and are switching platforms.

Perhaps your friend doesn't know that x86 and Windows emulators have been available for the Mac since before the PowerPC chip was even used in Apple hardware, when the 68040 chip ruled (more than 10 years ago). I still have a copy of SoftWindows v1.0 with Windows 3.1 somewhere. Worked then, back in 1995, and works now (not W2K compliant, though; you need to lie about the date to run it).

Yet, people still make Mac apps. Go figure.

However, if people are to believe stuff like I saw on the CTV National News last night, no wonder there's confusion. In a curt, four-sentence blurb, that lasted all of 20 seconds, CTV told us that " ... after 20 years of fighting Microsoft, Apple has announced that from now on, Macintoshes will run Windows. The reason? Money. Apple's market share remains under 3%. Still, only certain models are compatible, so it won't work with all Macs. ..." Then they cut to commercial.

Now, if you saw/heard that, and didn't know better, you would be excused for thinking Apple has just stopped shipping OSX forever. By the way, does anyone know, has CTV ever gotten <i>anything</i> right?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

IronMac said:


> The prediction's coming along nicely since the company seems to be more focused on the iPod and it's shooting itself in the foot with this Boot Camp initiative.


You might want to rethink that... look at all the products Apple offers. Contrast those that are iPod and iPod related goods (accessories) versus Mac and Mac-related goods (software, peripherals.) You'll note that Apple is developing fare more Mac-related goods being developed than there are iPod.

Now tell me Apple is more focused on the iPod.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

IronMac said:


> They may soon not have much of a choice. I believe that Mac software developers are now presented with a huge opportunity to tackle a much bigger market share than the Mac niche that they now play in. Why should they be content with a measly 3-4% of the potential software market when they can go after the whole enchilada?


Nothing stopped them from doing this before Boot Camp. They very easily could have joined Ballmer's legions of DEVELOPERSDEVELOPERSDEVELOPERS at any time. The Windows market has been a plum development market for AGES, but SOMETHING (or things) must hold the Mac developers to the platform beyond pure economy of scale or else we'd have had no apps a long time ago. I could be accused of being a romantic by saying this, but maybe they like using Mac OS just as much as we do?? If there are any other explanation as to why thousands of companies code for only 4% of the world's personal computers, let me know.

If developers try to abandon the Mac OS X platform amidst a rise in its userbase on account of "switchers", don't you think that they'll be alienating their customers? Won't those customers, tired of the Windows environment, feel like they're being manipulated by these suppliers, get pissed off and seek other solutions? Like, they JUST tried to get out from under the Windows yoke, and now some greedy-ass corporation's gonna try and force 'em back under it?? I'd say that the outcry of the French Revolution would pale in comparison to the noise all of us and any newly adopted users would make. Further, maybe some of those switchers will flat-out request OS X versions? Maybe developer's market research will show them that their customers WANT to bolt from the Windows platform? Maybe they'll consider retaining those customers -- not to mention avail themselves to another four % of the market -- by releasing OS X compatible titles?



> On the other side of the coin, why would any Windows software developer even bother looking to develop or port any of their apps for the Mac side now? They can now say that if a user wants to user their app they can purchase the Windows version.


There's a risk of that occurring to a certain extent, but the point of Windows users buying a Mac and dual booting is because _they don't want to use Windows anymore_, or want to use it as little as possible. If this wasn't the case, they would've stuck with their Dells in the first place. No one _happy_ with Windows is going to buy a Mac. Anyone who did buy a Mac and yet cared to only run Windows on it would be displaying the most severe of dysfunctional thinking. Even I would ask them what the point of it is.

Also, _the Mac platform has to stand on what it offers TODAY_, not by wondering if any Windows developers will "switch". No one is going to -- and no one should -- migrate off of Windows without the majority of their software needs being met by what the Mac platform offers, today. Boot Camp should be considered a stopgap solution, a pleasant surprise escape hatch out of the Windows biodome. And dual booting s very inconvenient. You're running MS Access under Vista, but you're email is in OS X Mail. Virtualization would alleviate this problem, but not their STILL having to use Windows... unless they find out how well Filemaker Pro plugs into Access databases (for example). As switchers acclimate to the platform and lose their taste for Windows, they may seek out comparable applications to replace their Windows titles.

To finish, I will say these three things:

1) Apple has been pumping on all pistons wonderfully over the past several years. Their products are better than ever, and their revenues are better than ever. Most of their products are the best on the planet at this time. And Microsoft? Well, they bought the word, "beleaguered" off of Apple via eBay, cheap.

2) Thanks to the iPod, they've currently got some serious mojo gushing out of their gonads, and they're poised amidst public awareness perhaps better than they ever have been -- even better than the debut of the original Macintosh I submit -- to take some pretty big risks in order to grow marketshare. My belief is that the ABSOLUTE BEST CASE SCENARIO for Apple to grow some marketshare could be back up to maybe near 10% in say... five years. While this would hardly be a mortal threat to Microsoft (Linux in the enterprise is a bigger problem for them, IMHO), such growth would be a major MAJOR boon for Apple. Given the conditions, it is now or never for Apple to stage their golden renaissance. Go big, or go home.

3) Boot Camp is a pretty damned risky thing to do. I believe (and Phil Schiller is quoted as saying) that they really thought long and hard about this decision. But, the rewards could be great! Now, they just better start _ MARKETING THE HELL OUT OF THEIR COMPUTER AND OS PRODUCTS!!_


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Apple is gambling that OS X is sufficiently superior to Windows XP (and Vista) that users will not simply dump the Mac operating system and simply run Windows apps. 

I don't think you have to use OS X for long to realize that this is a pretty good bet in Apple's favour. Fewer malware and virus risks, better networking, better apps, Office support...it all adds up to keep people on board. 

So who is going to want to run Windows on their Mac? I mean after the dust settles and people stop doing it because they think it just a cool and geeky thing to be able to do? 

Very few. Maybe for games...maybe for Quickbooks. But since it's dual boot rather than emulation, I suspect that most will find it too much of a hassle to bother with on a regular basis.

As for the worries about developers...any software developer who wants to sell to Mac buyers will still have to make available an OS X version of their apps. That's just good business. 

As I understand it, that task is far, far less onerous or expensive compared to the old days when the differences between compiling for OS 9 and Win 95 were such that it was like writing an all-new application. 

Look at what the makers of Warcraft did. They released both the Mac and PC version of their game on the same disc. That's smart. It saves money and it keeps users happy. Look for that to be repeated.


----------



## Wheezy (Mar 3, 2005)

Finally, Apple has made a fantastic decision... Allow everyone to use a far greater OS (Windows, of course!) along with having the choice of running the one we're forced to use at my school... (OS X, of course...)


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> You might want to rethink that... look at all the products Apple offers. Contrast those that are iPod and iPod related goods (accessories) versus Mac and Mac-related goods (software, peripherals.) You'll note that Apple is developing fare more Mac-related goods being developed than there are iPod.
> 
> Now tell me Apple is more focused on the iPod.



That's right. Their professional content offerings (Final Cut Suite, Logic Pro) have NEVER been stronger. Their networking technologies (OS X Server, xServe, xSan) have also never been stronger. As they had a head start on Universal Binary releases, everything they sell is either UB or will be within weeks. While it is still a BIG job for those developers who didn't go Cocoa from the get-go and there are several key programs yet to migrate, Apple has managed in a short time to kick-start the process pretty well.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Wheezy said:


> Finally, Apple has made a fantastic decision... Allow everyone to use a far greater OS (Windows, of course!) along with having the choice of running the one we're forced to use at my school... (OS X, of course...)


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

(( p g )) said:


> Look at what the makers of Warcraft did. They released both the Mac and PC version of their game on the same disc. That's smart. It saves money and it keeps users happy. Look for that to be repeated.


Long live Blizzard!
Indeed, it's a smart move. I love them.


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

Caught that one :
ROFL
http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20060406.html
I love the title!!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bootcamp eh....hmmmmmm....training ground for the upcoming offensive on Dell


----------



## rei (May 6, 2005)

aren't you worried about installing this time-limited beta for people, who might have it expire later?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

2007???
People will upgrade to Leopard long before that becomes an issue.


----------



## Aero (Mar 2, 2006)

rei said:


> aren't you worried about installing this time-limited beta for people, who might have it expire later?


Im guessing it will expire around the time Apple release leopard. So its either buy leopard or loose bootcamp?? Thats what I think when I put together time-limited beta and leopard will have bootcamp built-in.

It could be a big selling factor(for some people) for leopard.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Installing XP as I write this- Works like a charm. 

Im aware of the arguments against Apple doing this, but for me, Having a dual-boot machine makes my life a lot easier. I can run my Windows audio Apps and switch over to OS X when I want to surf, etc. 

Its a good solution, I think.


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=44561&d=1144363827

From Audiodan.
11 more days, he said .


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Macaholic said:


> I could be accused of being a romantic by saying this, but maybe they like using Mac OS just as much as we do?? If there are any other explanation as to why thousands of companies code for only 4% of the world's personal computers, let me know.


Big fish, small pond.



Macaholic said:


> If developers try to abandon the Mac OS X platform amidst a rise in its userbase on account of "switchers", don't you think that they'll be alienating their customers?


They may believe that that's a risk worth taking if enough people buy dual-boot machines. If enough people are willing to use the Windows version then they don't have to worry.



Macaholic said:


> Won't those customers, tired of the Windows environment, feel like they're being manipulated by these suppliers, get pissed off and seek other solutions?


That argument doesn't wash when you see how much people are willing to put up with on the Windows' side.



Macaholic said:


> IFurther, maybe some of those switchers will flat-out request OS X versions? Maybe developer's market research will show them that their customers WANT to bolt from the Windows platform? Maybe they'll consider retaining those customers -- not to mention avail themselves to another four % of the market -- by releasing OS X compatible titles?


And how many of us Mac users wanted OS X-compatible games? How many of us have been hoping for decades that we will at least have parity with the Windows world? Again, that argument doesn't wash...you have to look at whether or not developers will make a go of it on the Mac side.




Macaholic said:


> but the point of Windows users buying a Mac and dual booting is because _they don't want to use Windows anymore_, or want to use it as little as possible. If this wasn't the case, they would've stuck with their Dells in the first place. No one _happy_ with Windows is going to buy a Mac. Anyone who did buy a Mac and yet cared to only run Windows on it would be displaying the most severe of dysfunctional thinking. Even I would ask them what the point of it is.
> 
> Also, _the Mac platform has to stand on what it offers TODAY_, not by wondering if any Windows developers will "switch". No one is going to -- and no one should -- migrate off of Windows without the majority of their software needs being met by what the Mac platform offers, today. Boot Camp should be considered a stopgap solution, a pleasant surprise escape hatch out of the Windows biodome. And dual booting s very inconvenient. You're running MS Access under Vista, but you're email is in OS X Mail. Virtualization would alleviate this problem, but not their STILL having to use Windows... unless they find out how well Filemaker Pro plugs into Access databases (for example). As switchers acclimate to the platform and lose their taste for Windows, they may seek out comparable applications to replace their Windows titles.


From the above, one should conclude that this Boot Camp initiative will do little or nothing to help the Mac platform. 

What I'm trying to say is that Boot Camp will be giving Mac developers a good reason to "switch"...not that Windows developers will "switch". Why should they?



Macaholic said:


> To finish, I will say these three things:
> 
> 1) Apple has been pumping on all pistons wonderfully over the past several years. Their products are better than ever, and their revenues are better than ever. Most of their products are the best on the planet at this time.


Apple's only been doing well over the past two years. In 2004, we were debating whether or not we were seeing fewer Macs around us.




Macaholic said:


> 3) Boot Camp is a pretty damned risky thing to do. I believe (and Phil Schiller is quoted as saying) that they really thought long and hard about this decision. But, the rewards could be great! Now, they just better start _ MARKETING THE HELL OUT OF THEIR COMPUTER AND OS PRODUCTS!!_


I think that Boot Camp is an extremely dangerous thing for them to do with little reward in the wings. Why?

They could have kept growing their marketshare without allowing developers to move into the Windows' world. Who is the product really aimed for? The enterprise market? Because of security and virus issues? Well, that doesn't wash...viruses and insecurity will occur on the Windows' side anyways.
The home user? The Windows home user who switches over doesn't want to use Windows. The Mac home user doesn't want to use Windows. The market here is therefore tiny!

Just crazy!

And, if Apple wasn't marketing like mad when they have the greatest OS on the planet...what makes you think that they will market like mad now just because they can Windows?


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

IronMac said:


> Big fish, small pond.


Then you've negated your prior argument about Mac developers moving to Windows. they are incumbents in the small pond, and will be part of the expansion. And, big fish are typically scared of the BIG POND, or else those fish would have swum into the Windows stream a long time ago.




> That argument doesn't wash when you see how much people are willing to put up with on the Windows' side.


Ironmac, many people put up with Windows because _they think they have to_, not because they want to. Many don't know any better.




> And how many of us Mac users wanted OS X-compatible games? How many of us have been hoping for decades that we will at least have parity with the Windows world? Again, that argument doesn't wash...you have to look at whether or not developers will make a go of it on the Mac side.


I'm not sure many will make a go of it, but there are still lots of incumbents in "the small pond" that can serve most needs. But, your guess is as good (or bad) as anybody's on what will happen. probably of all sectors, games may well not gain much more traction. other sectors might fare better.




> From the above, one should conclude that this Boot Camp initiative will do little or nothing to help the Mac platform.


How so? I made two points in the block of m,y post you referenced.



> What I'm trying to say is that Boot Camp will be giving Mac developers a good reason to "switch"...not that Windows developers will "switch". Why should they?


Again, I say that if any Mac developers wanted to go Windows, they would have. Macs booting Windows does not change the size of that big, scary, competitive Windows pond.



> Apple's only been doing well over the past two years. In 2004, we were debating whether or not we were seeing fewer Macs around us.


There numbers have held steady through the beginning of this century, and have picked up in 04 and 05. With all the other aspects in play -- iPods and retail stores, primarily -- they're primed to take it up a notch or two. I'm betting that they will.




> I think that Boot Camp is an extremely dangerous thing for them to do with little reward in the wings. Why?


It is definitely an unknown entity. i give you that.



> They could have kept growing their marketshare without allowing developers to move into the Windows' world.


You have nothing to back up this prediction. you;re guess is as good -- or bad -- as anybody's.



> Who is the product really aimed for? The enterprise market? Because of security and virus issues? Well, that doesn't wash...viruses and insecurity will occur on the Windows' side anyways.


Frankly, I'm not sure that the enterprise market will react positively to this. The education sector might go for it in a big way, however. This provides them with excellent flexibility to deploy macs with either OS any way they need to. But, the point of booting Windows on a Mac is not to maintain dual-booting; it is to _ween users_ off of Windows. Mac OS X is a very seductive environment, and I have seen people slowly slide away from a dual platform to a single platform arrangement. There are many here as ehMac members.



> The home user? The Windows home user who switches over doesn't want to use Windows. The Mac home user doesn't want to use Windows. The market here is therefore tiny!
> 
> Just crazy!


Not crazy. YOU'RE crazy!  What don't you get that this allows people to not have to sever their tether to Windows, completely. Despite all logic, many people fear this. So, Boot Camp allows them to go slow. And frankly, it is the typical home user who really benefits from getting their sorry asses off of an embattled platform, and the true experience they'll find is that committing to the switch will be easier than they ever thought... because their fears are based on ignorance. Put simply, Boot Camp is a security blanket.

And consider this: say... the a worst-case scenario "half-switcher" STILL uses Internet Explorer, Outlook Express and games on a dual-boot Macintel and they boot into OS X for say, iLife. What do you think they will do when the next piece of Windows malware, worm or virus hits the Windows partition? Frustrated, they will boot into Mac OS X and perform those same functions on the Mac side. Any money on how many of them will not have bothered to fix their Windows partition within a week? How about a month? Especially considering that they could move all their documents over to the Mac partition (burn a data disk?), how many might get that Windows partition fixed within a month? Could it be possible that they just may leave that partition there to rot? Blowing it away when their Mac partition runs out of room?



> And, if Apple wasn't marketing like mad when they have the greatest OS on the planet...what makes you think that they will market like mad now just because they can Windows?


Well, Part One of your statement is aligned with my (and surely many other's) frustration with Apple typically not advertising enough about OS X in the mainstream media. Part Two -- why would that change -- is because they have a MAJOR reason to let the masses know something the masses THINK they REALLY need. Boot Camp gives the masses a relief from Windows, yet also a gentle, controlled migration from it -- one that they can make on their own time.

What's wrong with that??

I admit that this is probably the biggest gamble Apple has done yet, short of refusing to license Mac OS back in 1985. But I submit that they have never been as ready to go for more marketshare than they are now (we haven't even talked about Microsoft and how all of their embarrasing misfires and the putrid state of security on the Windows platform could bring about some migration). The overwhelming opinion out there amongst the prominant bloggers and journalists is that this is a good move by Apple. I'm somewhere north of 60% sure it's a good thing, but time will tell.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

IronMac said:


> Right after the Intel news, a friend of mine said that Apple will most likely ditch OS X because the Windows market is just so much bigger and, if the Mac app developers leave, that is what will happen whether Apple likes it or not.


With friends like that, who needs enemas? 

I have a friend that claimed he saw Elvis in Peterborough last summer. Should I believe him like you believe your friend?

If Apple ditches Mac OS X (they won't, but let's just say), I swear to God I will put a gun in my mouth and blow my head off.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Okay. More stuff here.

WOW on the same Mac, under both OS X and XP:
http://microwork.bounceme.net/
Verdict: runs better on OS X.

And OMG Half Life 2 on an iMac! I WILL confess that I would still do everything I need in OS X... but game in XP on my Macintel (if I had a Macintel). To me, _avid_ gaming is the only usage scenario where I say "go Windows" without hesitation. Everything else, I research it before I answer. So, seeing this in action is very titillating for me. Check out screenshots and scroll down the page for a video of the gameplay:
http://www.cabel.name/2006/04/boot-camp-first-look-half-life-2-video.html

And finally, responses to a query put out at microsoft-watch.com for reaction to Boot Camp. LOTS of responses -- with most responses from legit professionals from deep within Microsoft's turf, _not a buncha hobbyists from deep within their basements_. The numbers break down to 90% in favour of the Boot Camp approach, 10% not in favour -- and this is not just so they can ONLY run Windows on a pretty box. Read some of the responses the website got:
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,1947059,00.asp


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

My thoughts on the whole thing: They've given Windows users _another_ really good reason to try the switch with little risk to their investment.

The only developers that may be directly affected by it are game developers. As for the rest: why risk NOT porting to the Mac with the possibility that Mac users _might_ run Windows on their box? They won't make more money from sticking to Windows. I'd wager we'll see even MORE previously Win-only apps being ported to the MacOS... why? Because developers can get a dual-boot machine to work on!

Also, Isn't the idea of the MacOS about having a solid platform that's stable and secure that offers people a better computing experience? Why would Apple actually drop the MacOS for Windows? Why would users drop MacOS for Windows?

It's not bloody likely.

Bootcamp not only allows Win users the opportunity to test the waters, but it effectively opens up Mac users to software that was otherwise Windows-only without paying for a Winbox. How long before Vista comes out? People are tired of waiting.

Apple has just leveled the playing field in a big way. Dell was trying to get the MacOS for their WinBoxes; now Apple has turned everything upside down. They have just officially entered into the "PC" market.

The next bomb is if/when they release Leopard with Windows virtualization.

Check Apple's stocks... there's a reason it's climbing.


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

LOL, I loved that PvP like war between Macaholic and IronMac.
Sorry, I had to say this.

Wow, that WoW test proves something!
Macs can be great for gaming!
I do enjoy WoW quite alot.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> I'd wager we'll see even MORE previously Win-only apps being ported to the MacOS... why? Because developers can get a dual-boot machine to work on!


At first, this thought of yours seemed over-simplistic. There's a lot more to coding for a different platform than just buying the hardware. Then -- as i am not a developer (and neither are you, IIRC) -- I thought further about this and have two questions:

1) Is not xCode on every OS X installer disk and FREE of charge?

2) For a person already experienced and probably certified to code using MS's developer tools, how big a leap would it be for them to code in xCode?

Actually, THREE questions:

3) _If_ Apple could, would they ever want to include Windows compiling capability within xCode so that, with one developer suite, one could code for OS X/PPC, OS X/x86... _and_ native Windows?? If the Mac platform could become The Mother of All Developer Platforms... would Apple welcome this idea? Would it benefit the Mac userbase??


----------



## mmp (Oct 20, 2001)

My six year old is about to soon upgrade from his PM 7600 to this eMac.:clap:

Gaming, and scrapbooking/card making software for my wife are the only two things I would use PC software for and the scrapbooking/card making software is the big sticking point in our household. 

Now I'm getting an iMac or MacBook Pro on my desk at work and it is going to be great!!!!!!


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

The reason why I mentioned the possibilities of more Win-only software coming to the Mac is a simple one: Some developers just do not have Mac hardware or software to work with.

Granted, this typically applies to small developers.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Macaholic said:


> Then you've negated your prior argument about Mac developers moving to Windows. they are incumbents in the small pond, and will be part of the expansion. And, big fish are typically scared of the BIG POND, or else those fish would have swum into the Windows stream a long time ago.


The pond was already expanding but, now, the big fish have a chance to move into the ocean. They've got the backing and it will be easier to do so now rather than a couple of years ago when the Mac market was in trouble.




Macaholic said:


> I'm not sure many will make a go of it, but there are still lots of incumbents in "the small pond" that can serve most needs. But, your guess is as good (or bad) as anybody's on what will happen. probably of all sectors, games may well not gain much more traction. other sectors might fare better.


I've read of some guy running Fear on his Macintel and your link later on about Half-Life means that this is going to be the final nail in the coffin for Mac gaming. (BTW, did I link to that Aspyr game developer?)




Macaholic said:


> There numbers have held steady through the beginning of this century, and have picked up in 04 and 05. With all the other aspects in play -- iPods and retail stores, primarily -- they're primed to take it up a notch or two. I'm betting that they will.


http://www.macworld.com/news/2004/01/15/idc/index.php?redirect=1076080818000

I think that their numbers only started turning around in 2005...at best, 2004. And, yes, they could have kept growing their numbers.




Macaholic said:


> Not crazy. YOU'RE crazy!  What don't you get that this allows people to not have to sever their tether to Windows, completely. Despite all logic, many people fear this. So, Boot Camp allows them to go slow. And frankly, it is the typical home user who really benefits from getting their sorry asses off of an embattled platform, and the true experience they'll find is that committing to the switch will be easier than they ever thought... because their fears are based on ignorance. Put simply, Boot Camp is a security blanket.


Wait a sec...the typical home user is to some extent pretty price-sensitive. So, in order to keep a security blanket, they are going to purchase a Mac mini ($600 or so) along with WinXP ($125-150 for Home Edition)? This, along with learning a new OS? That makes little sense. 



Macaholic said:


> And consider this: say... the a worst-case scenario "half-switcher" STILL uses Internet Explorer, Outlook Express and games on a dual-boot Macintel and they boot into OS X for say, iLife. What do you think they will do when the next piece of Windows malware, worm or virus hits the Windows partition? Frustrated, they will boot into Mac OS X and perform those same functions on the Mac side. Any money on how many of them will not have bothered to fix their Windows partition within a week? How about a month? Especially considering that they could move all their documents over to the Mac partition (burn a data disk?), how many might get that Windows partition fixed within a month? Could it be possible that they just may leave that partition there to rot? Blowing it away when their Mac partition runs out of room?


If the home user is willing to pay more to have WinXP installed then they are not going to let that partition rot. In fact, in my case, I would reinstall that as soon as possible in order to play my games! 




Macaholic said:


> Part Two -- why would that change -- is because they have a MAJOR reason to let the masses know something the masses THINK they REALLY need. Boot Camp gives the masses a relief from Windows, yet also a gentle, controlled migration from it -- one that they can make on their own time.
> 
> What's wrong with that??


First, in OS X, Apple had/has a great reason to let the masses know and they didn't...not for the last five years.
Second, I'm not worried about the OS itself, I'm worried about losing developers which, in a sense, is a long term threat to the OS.



Macaholic said:


> The overwhelming opinion out there amongst the prominant bloggers and journalists is that this is a good move by Apple. I'm somewhere north of 60% sure it's a good thing, but time will tell.


And, how many times has the herd been wrong before? :lmao:


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Macaholic said:


> Okay. More stuff here.
> 
> WOW on the same Mac, under both OS X and XP:
> http://microwork.bounceme.net/
> ...


Include Fear on that list. Goodbye Mac gaming! (I hope Peter Cohen's out of a job.)



Macaholic said:


> And finally, responses to a query put out at microsoft-watch.com for reaction to Boot Camp. LOTS of responses -- with most responses from legit professionals from deep within Microsoft's turf, _not a buncha hobbyists from deep within their basements_. The numbers break down to 90% in favour of the Boot Camp approach, 10% not in favour -- and this is not just so they can ONLY run Windows on a pretty box. Read some of the responses the website got:
> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,1947059,00.asp


Responses like:

"The dual-boot environment is of limited interest,"
by Mr. TeHennepe

"There are many use cases for dual boot, but it seems that virtualization is the holy grail that will lead the corporate market to consider Mac OS on the desktop with Windows XP/Vista in a window for a few apps."
by JoeD

"Let's work on getting Mac OS X to run on a PC"
by Dominic De Lello

This is only on the first page too! Although to be fair, the second page has more positive responses.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Macaholic said:


> I have a friend that claimed he saw Elvis in Peterborough last summer. Should I believe him like you believe your friend?
> 
> If Apple ditches Mac OS X (they won't, but let's just say), I swear to God I will put a gun in my mouth and blow my head off.


I never said that I believed him. His idea was that OS X would be dropped in a deal between MS and Apple in which Apple gets to install iTunes within Windows. This would give Apple access to a much wider audience for their music store and iPod players. It's all about money.

BTW, I don't think any of us will hold you to your promise to blow your head off. :lmao:


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> As for the rest: why risk NOT porting to the Mac with the possibility that Mac users _might_ run Windows on their box? They won't make more money from sticking to Windows. I'd wager we'll see even MORE previously Win-only apps being ported to the MacOS... why? Because developers can get a dual-boot machine to work on!


Why would they port over to OS X? Their users (originally on Windows) will still be on Windows and, if Mac users run Windows, that would be great because then they don't need an OS X port. Granted, I think that this will depend on the app and on how big of a market there will be. This will probably mean that there will be no sudden seismic shift in the software market.



« MannyP Design » said:


> Check Apple's stocks... there's a reason it's climbing.


Yeah, hype. 

Don't get me wrong...I love the hype because I do own hundreds of shares of AAPL. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

IronMac said:


> Why would they port over to OS X? Their users (originally on Windows) will still be on Windows and, if Mac users run Windows, that would be great because then they don't need an OS X port. Granted, I think that this will depend on the app and on how big of a market there will be. This will probably mean that there will be no sudden seismic shift in the software market.


Why? Let's see... the Mac platform share has been growing; dualboot is only fun until you need to use the other OS; there is money to be made (cross-licencing anyone?); the Mac platform is much more secure. Oh, and it's easier to use. 

How's that for starters?



> Yeah, hype.
> 
> Don't get me wrong...I love the hype because I do own hundreds of shares of AAPL. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


Hype is what people with limited foresight label things that they can't fully comprehend. This is akin to watching a movie trailer and some people have immediately make the assumption that it's going to suck.

There are two scenarios Apple could follow in order to get their OS on a higher marketshare: Bring Windows users to the Mac (with dual booting); or port the Mac OS to run on WinBoxes. We've already seen what happens when 3rd parties get the run of the hardware with licensing the Mac OS on their flavor of computer (Motorola, Power Computing, et al). It got ugly real fast.

Apple has gained a lot of momentum over the last several years--Bootcamp has given it an extra push that just might make things go a helluva lot faster. What's the worst that could happen? A Win user buys a Mac and runs it... tries out Mac-only software, and then installs Bootcamp and Windows. Already Apple has made a potential in-road to a new customer; they've sold new hardware; they have their product on someone's desk. If that person sticks with Windows... nothing changes. If they start using the Mac OS as time goes on, the next thing you know people start buying Mac products (software, hardware, etc.)

It's all about getting your foot in the doorway.

The only reason people want OS X on WinTel boxes is because they are cheap bastards.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

The lead programmer for Xbox digs it. From his blog:

http://www.majornelson.com/2006/04/05/windows-on-your-macofficially/


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Time will tell, Ironmac. Hold onto that Apple stock!


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Macaholic said:


> ...
> If Apple ditches Mac OS X (they won't, but let's just say), I swear to God I will put a gun in my mouth and blow my head off....


Wow. Finally, someone who may be as much of a Mac fanatic as I am!
I'm not saying save an extra bullet for me, but if Apple dumps their OS, I could conceivably become a recluse, meditating on a mountainside. Not that there's anything _wrong_ with that...


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

More Windows-centric blogs on Boot Camp:
(LOTS of reader reviews, too)

http://www.microsoftmonitor.com/archives/014763.html

http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/04/05/run-xp-on-a-mac-cool/

An incredible portal to Boot Camp blogs!

http://tech.memeorandum.com/060405/p28#a060405p28


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Macaholic said:


> More Windows-centric blogs on Boot Camp:
> (LOTS of reader reviews, too)
> http://www.microsoftmonitor.com/archives/014763.html...
> ...


These enlightening quotes from microsoftmonitor.com:
_I'm convinced there is a group of people wanting to try or switch to a Mac but don't because they think they might need Windows. Boot Camp removes that psychological barrier, because now these people could have Windows. *I wonder how many of them really will buy Windows. Just knowing they could install Windows might be enough. The $200 or $300 extra cost for Windows would be another psychological barrier, which could delay buying until there would be need.*

Another Mac purchase barrier is the "spouse problem" (partner for those unmarried folks). I can't even count the number of people who have told me they wanted to buy a Mac, but their spouse/partner needed Windows for work purposes. Boot Camp is one resolution._

And this:
_...I would contend that Apple may have made installing Windows XP on a Mac easier than on a PC._ :lmao: 

Hmmmmm.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nevermind the cache of PC games the kids (and even middle aged kids like myself) have


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Why? Let's see... the Mac platform share has been growing; dualboot is only fun until you need to use the other OS; there is money to be made (cross-licencing anyone?); the Mac platform is much more secure. Oh, and it's easier to use.
> 
> How's that for starters?


We're going around in circles here. You have to convince me that Windows application developers will develop Mac OS X versions of their apps because of Boot Camp. I'm saying that that will not happen.

If the Mac platform is growing (and it is), why would any developer want to spend the resources to develop an OS X version when there is Boot Camp?



« MannyP Design » said:


> Hype is what people with limited foresight label things that they can't fully comprehend.


I'll try not insult you too.



« MannyP Design » said:


> There are two scenarios Apple could follow in order to get their OS on a higher marketshare: Bring Windows users to the Mac (with dual booting); or port the Mac OS to run on WinBoxes. We've already seen what happens when 3rd parties get the run of the hardware with licensing the Mac OS on their flavor of computer (Motorola, Power Computing, et al). It got ugly real fast.


Ironically enough, one reason that I didn't go over to Windows was that Power Computing had a PowerCenter 150 that was a *much better value* than the comparable Apple offering at that time. Apple was stupid. It didn't consider the unintended consequences of what they were doing...guess, you could say that it was because of "limited foresight".


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Macaholic said:


> Time will tell, Ironmac. Hold onto that Apple stock!


Here's what I'm considering...if AAPL hits over US$100 and I have no immediate need for it (such as paying rent/food), I will sell enough shares to purchase the highest-end Macintel tower model available to run both WinXP and OS X. :love2: 

P.S. I hope at that point that virtualization is available. :clap:


----------



## macsackbut (Dec 15, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> If Apple ditches Mac OS X (they won't, but let's just say), I swear to God I will put a gun in my mouth and blow my head off....


But wouldn't you also consider taking SJ down with you? If not you, I bet there is more than one true Mac fanatic out there who would consider it. (Just so it's clear, I'm in no way suggesting that either Macaholic's original threat or my question to him is in any way serious. It's just a thought.) I'm sure ditching OS X would have a HUGE effect on the Mac faithful and would generate a lot of real anger. 

If Apple thought ditching OS X were the right thing to do, they still might not do it simply because they surely realize it would unleash a geek apocalypse like nothing anyone has ever seen before.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Macaholic - Not licensing the Mac OS in 1985 was done for a lot of reasons - most of it being that the existing PCs did not have the hardware to run the Mac OS - they didn't have the Mac ROM that contained the Mac Toolkit that the system leveraged. It wasn't just an OS - it was tied to the hardware.

I think what people are missing is not that this is the end but as said in the quote:



> Boot Camp is not about world domination or a direct frontal assault on Microsoft’s Windows monopoly. No matter how cool Boot Camp is, it’s not even going to make sense to most people out there, let alone actually get them to buy a Mac. You try explaining “boot loaders” to your mom.
> 
> But Boot Camp is inordinately appealing to the higher end of the market, the enthusiasts. Your typical civilian (i.e. non-enthusiast) has no need — or at least sees no need — for dual booting. They use email, they use a web browser, they want something useful to happen when they plug a digital camera into their USB port. Whichever OS comes on their computer is good enough for this.
> 
> ...


Source


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

IronMac said:


> We're going around in circles here. You have to convince me that Windows application developers will develop Mac OS X versions of their apps because of Boot Camp. I'm saying that that will not happen.
> 
> If the Mac platform is growing (and it is), why would any developer want to spend the resources to develop an OS X version when there is Boot Camp?


And you have to convince me otherwise. Some people believed that moving to Intel wasn't a good thing either... I'm still waiting for people to prove that opinion as well.

Here's a question: Why would you want to develop for the Mac--period?



> I'll try not insult you too.


Just because you love sparring with people doesn't mean I'm directing a comment in your direction for the explicit purpose of insulting you. No need to be defensive--you have your belief, I have mine.



> Ironically enough, one reason that I didn't go over to Windows was that Power Computing had a PowerCenter 150 that was a *much better value* than the comparable Apple offering at that time. Apple was stupid. It didn't consider the unintended consequences of what they were doing...guess, you could say that it was because of "limited foresight".


And the main reason I chose the Mac was because it was easy to use.

Apple was losing a lot of money because of it--they were literally bleeding to death from everyone jumping to clones; Jobs put an end to that quickly. Where's the benefit if you're just going to port your OS to other boxes? Apple's bread and butter is not from iTunes nor iPod--it's laptops. Apple has been a hardware company from day one and I suspect they will be as such for a long time.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Chealion said:


> Macaholic - Not licensing the Mac OS in 1985 was done for a lot of reasons - most of it being that the existing PCs did not have the hardware to run the Mac OS - they didn't have the Mac ROM that contained the Mac Toolkit that the system leveraged. It wasn't just an OS - it was tied to the hardware.[/URL]


The ROM could either have been licensed as well, or rolled into the software. These letters from Bill Gates to Apple back then infers that there could have been some movement on this.

And then there was Star Trek:

http://lowendmac.com/orchard/05/0613.html

http://lowendmac.com/orchard/05/0613.html

But, by then -- the early 1990's -- it would have been too late what with Microsoft's command of the market. Apple's one moment in time to license Mac OS was in 1985 when they were the only viable GUI game in town, and the market was wide open for a GUI-based OS.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

IronMac said:


> We're going around in circles here. You have to convince me --


_*--SNIP--*_

Sorry -- whoever you are -- but we don't "have to convince" you of anything. We need neither your agreement nor blessing to believe what we think. Just take it down a notch. Your arrogance is showing.

Thanks


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Apple was losing a lot of money because of it--they were literally bleeding to death from everyone jumping to clones; Jobs put an end to that quickly.


And most hardware innovations/changes came from the clone makers - PowerComputing machines were 1 year ahead of Apple, Motorola was introducing chip and hardware changes also. At the time, hardware wise, Apple clones rocked. After burning those bridges, it seemed Apple was on the decline, until the high end G5s (even there the units seemed overpriced and not very expandable). I don't think it's fair to say everyone jumped to clones - seems that Apple marketshare was also on the decline coupled with the clones winning over some buyers.



> Between 1995 and 1997, Apple's own Macintosh system sales dropped from about 4.5 million units to 1.8 million units, and the total market share for all MacOS systems was shrinking rapidly as well, hitting its nadir somewhere in the 3.x percent range. In the second quarter of 1997, roughly one quarter of all MacOS systems shipped were clones -- a large proportion of those being high-profit, high- end units. Power Computing alone had around 10 percent of the MacOS system market, with Motorola and Umax holding down about five percent each.
> 
> 
> By that time, Apple was hemorrhaging red ink, although that could not be entirely blamed on the clones. The collapse of eWorld, failure to deliver the chimerical Copland OS, disappointing market receptions for the Newton PDA and OpenDoc, and Apple's bloated, high-cost, corporate organization all contributed as well. Apple's own product line was chaotic, with so many different Performa and Macintosh models that even obsessive Mac fans couldn't keep them sorted out. The PowerBook 5300 had been a public relations disaster that Apple was only beginning to recover from with the solid but unexciting PowerBook 1400, and the just introduced PowerBook 3400 speedster.
> ...


http://www.applelinks.com/articles/1999/12/19991209204350.shtml


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Here's a question: Why would you want to develop for the Mac--period?


That's what I'm asking YOU!!! If you're a Windows developer, why would you now that Boot Camp is out???  



« MannyP Design » said:


> Apple was losing a lot of money because of it--they were literally bleeding to death from everyone jumping to clones; Jobs put an end to that quickly. Where's the benefit if you're just going to port your OS to other boxes? Apple's bread and butter is not from iTunes nor iPod--it's laptops. Apple has been a hardware company from day one and I suspect they will be as such for a long time.


First of all, I'm not denying that Apple was losing money because of the clones. They were simply stupid over what their expectations were and didn't realize that, for what they were charging, they couldn't support their software development efforts and still build machines that people felt gave good value.
Second, it's the software not the hardware as their move to Intel chips so amply proves. The hardware is simply the packaging around their software otherwise no big deal. Before you jump all over that statement and say that it's all about design look at companies such as Sony with their Vaio line of computers. It all comes down to software.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I think a lot of people are missing the point of Boot Camp. It is not a threat or a trojan horse. Think about why Apple is offering a dual boot solution instead of virtualization. This is the key. Apple could easily have offered XP in a virtual environment (like the Parallel path). It didn't because:

1. It does not want Apple hardware to be shown in a bad light vis a vis performance. Virtualization has an overhead. Imagine the headlines: PCs are faster than Macs.

2. It does not want people to be switching between OS's every 30 seconds. The inconvenience is the incentive for users to use OS X primarily and XP occasionally (as a security blanket for switchers and as a necessity for people who need to run the odd PC program). It wants to add capabilities that it feels add value in the short term (switchers and people who need occasional access to Windows or who want to run games that are not (and never will be) available for Mac OS X).

3. It wants to offer a unique capability to Macs.

4. It doesn't want mixing of the environments for reasons of security, malware and support. Got a problem with Windows? Trash it and re-install. Afterall, that is what Microsoft now recommends...

Mac zealots who do not want their beloved machines tainted by Windows are not being forced to install it. If they can't deal with others running Windows on Apple hardware, they need to get a life. Moreover, there is no threat to Mac software development with the possible exception of Microsoft (which is the only company that is truly tied to Windows - not counting the anti-malware companies). However, Microsoft wins by selling extra copies of Windows and wins by selling Mac and Windows versions of Office. VPC is dead but I would expect Microsoft to offer a virtualization solution too. Apple won't need to support it nor will the performance be good enough compared with a Universal binary that makes use of the specific functions of OS X (especially in the graphics area and the integrated applications).

I also think it is premature to be predicting any demise of Dell or other PC makers. They may lose some marketshare but there has been cut throat consolidation in the PC manufacturing area for the past 5 years. Dell is adaptable and its PCs are cheaper than Apples. Most people don't want to run both OS X and XP (and this is also true of Mac users). Hence, if Apple's Mac marketshare doubles from 3.5% to 7%, does anyone really think Dell, Sony, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, Toshiba and the cheap clones will not be able to absorb a 3% loss between them without going belly up?

There will always be a market for cheap and crummy PCs, for build your own PCs (esp. high end) and for middle-of-the-road PCs that run XP and Linux (Dells market).

Meanwhile, Apple gets to build and sell twice as many Macs and everyone is happy, especially the Apple shareholders - who are all that counts to the company. Apple has finally cracked the conundrum of licensing. Allow Macs to be the hardware of choice for people who want true choice in OS.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Two big problems with the clones. Like AS said, Apple's gear SUCKED and was behind the curve in open hardware standards (didn't Motorola go IDE first?). But the other problem in my eye was that the entire promotional vehicle of mac clones was misguided. Most of it was directed right back at the choir -- _us_. If Apple had instead rallied all of their promotional efforts together to create something called, say, 'The PowerPC Alliance", and marketed THAT to the general computer using populace, things might have gone a little better. Imagine the impression of seeing manufacturer logos all over the place. how LEGIT looking (a trick out of Microsoft's playbook), and they had at kleast two very recognizable brands to leverage: Motorola... and Apple.

As it was, Jobs was right in killing the clone licensing at that time. The way things were going, the head would have been cut off the snake within a couple of years had he not terminated the deals. And if Apple died, the platform would have as well, possibly being bought by Sun -- or Sony... and just LOOK at what THEY did to their Walkman's cache


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Got a problem with Windows? Trash it and re-install. Afterall, that is what Microsoft now recommends...


That's a rather disingenuous comment and taken out of context. No more valid than archive and reinstall on the Mac for every bug......


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> But the other problem in my eye was that the entire promotional vehicle of mac clones was misguided. Most of it was directed right back at the choir -- _us_. If Apple had instead rallied all of their promotional efforts together to create something called, say, 'The PowerPC Alliance", and marketed THAT to the general computer using populace, things might have gone a little better.


It's getting a little cold here again... Macaholic and I agree!


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Moreover, there is no threat to Mac software development with the possible exception of Microsoft (which is the only company that is truly tied to Windows - not counting the anti-malware companies).


Well, actually, the only area that's really threatened in the short-term are Mac game developers. If you read Inside Mac Games and Brad Oliver from Aspyr you can see that they're putting on a pretty brave face:

http://www.insidemacgames.com/features/tuncersblog.php?ID=104
http://www.brad-oliver.com:8081/~boliver/blog/archives/000833.html


----------



## jdurston (Jan 28, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> It's getting a little cold here again... Macaholic and I agree!


Are you saying being here is Hell??


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

IronMac said:


> Well, actually, the only area that's really threatened in the short-term are Mac game developers. If you read Inside Mac Games and Brad Oliver from Aspyr you can see that they're putting on a pretty brave face:
> 
> http://www.insidemacgames.com/features/tuncersblog.php?ID=104
> http://www.brad-oliver.com:8081/~boliver/blog/archives/000833.html



yep, i would agree
gaming for os x will die

can't wait for halo 2 for windows.....
cause you know it ain't coming out for os x

now i gotta re-think my whole gaming machine setup


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> yep, i would agree
> gaming for os x will die
> 
> can't wait for halo 2 for windows.....
> ...


Gaming on OS X doesn't have to die--Mac developers have to start making ORIGINAL GAMES rather than port whatever comes out for Xbox/PS2/PC. Mac game developers are getting lazy.*

Remember Marathon? F-18 Hornet? Bungie and GraphSim were two companies that started out as Mac-only. People loved them... now where are they?

_*Lazy in the sense that nobody appears to have the interest in doing anything amazing, cutting edge, or really original that excites Mac users, rather than cutesy dinosaurs or rally racing cave men. Bungie was one company Mac users really loved back in the day... where's today's "Bungie"?]_


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Gaming on OS X doesn't have to die--Mac developers have to start making ORIGINAL GAMES rather than port whatever comes out for Xbox/PS2/PC. Mac game developers are getting lazy.*
> 
> Remember Marathon? F-18 Hornet? Bungie and GraphSim were two companies that started out as Mac-only. People loved them... now where are they?
> 
> _*Lazy in the sense that nobody appears to have the interest in doing anything amazing, cutting edge, or really original that excites Mac users, rather than cutesy dinosaurs or rally racing cave men. Bungie was one company Mac users really loved back in the day... where's today's "Bungie"?]_



mac only market is small
best that mac only gaming companies make pc games now that macs can run xp and play pc games very well


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> mac only market is small
> best that mac only gaming companies make pc games now that macs can run xp and play pc games very well


You mean it's EASIER. Not better.

If a game is good enough, a Mac gaming company can get a PC company to port THEIR game instead of the other way around. Marathon became so popular people demanded that it to ported to the PC. So was Hornet...

But you'll never see it happen these days... people would rather let others take the risk than try to actually create something original.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> That's a rather disingenuous comment and taken out of context. No more valid than archive and reinstall on the Mac for every bug......


Oh REALLY??

There is NO WAY you can equate an Archive and Install to the blunt force solution suggested by that Senior Microsoft Project Manager. Archive and Install preserves your entire account, files, preferences network settings and all. What Microsoft is suggesting people do is, when they're at their wit's end, zero the drive and rebuild! This includes not only the OS, but all of your Windows programs, service packs and program updates, all your files, bookmarks, those ****ing Outlook Express folders that arre BURIED DEEP in the drive, your control panel settings (network, printer, "security" and more), your favourite desktop background and icon layout (might as well give up such niceties on Windows) and everything.... and reactivate everything.

No comparison at all. and, if you don't like it, complain to that Microsoft Senior Project Manager.


EDIT: And YMMV, but I haven't had to do an Archive and Install since... I installed Tiger.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Your love for Hyperbole is commendable but can be annoying.

The usually well informed used to be jwoodget wrote:


> Got *a problem with Windows*? Trash it and re-install. Afterall, that is what Microsoft now recommends...


No where does Microsoft say that you fix problems by erasing and reinstalling. 
What the security official said "businesses should *consider investing* in an automated process to wipe hard drives and reinstall operating systems as a practical way to *recover from malware infestation.*"

As for buried deep, on some machines I can run OS 9 and OS X, and I can assure you that Mac OS X has some items buried rather deep and scatters a fair amount of files that start with a . (dot) in front of them.



Microsoft first line of defence is not erase-reinstall. Stating that is no more valid than saying that for every bug encountered in OS X you should archive and install. Unless of course you are Apple support who will ask you to create a new user - and that is one rather stupid overused first thing brain dead tech support will ask you to do (no matter what the problem is).

Spreading a lie that Microsoft recommends that you erase and reinstall is disingenuous.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> No where does Microsoft say that you fix problems by erasing and reinstalling.
> What the security official said "businesses should *consider investing* in an automated process to wipe hard drives and reinstall operating systems as a practical way to *recover from malware infestation.*"
> 
> Spreading a lie that Microsoft recommends that you erase and reinstall is disingenuous.


Oh COME ON. Here we go with you stuck in your little frozen posture again. And you are intentionally misrepresenting what he said -- and I will use the EXACT quote from him to show it:



> a Microsoft security official said businesses *should consider* (I suppose it would make a difference to you if he said 'bloody well better"? -- Macaholic) investing in an automated process to wipe hard drives and reinstall operating systems *as a practical way to recover from malware infestation.*
> 
> *"When you are dealing with rootkits and some advanced spyware programs, the only solution is to rebuild from scratch. In some cases, there really is no way to recover without nuking the systems from orbit,"*


I repeat:


> In some cases, there really is no way to recover without nuking the systems from orbit,"


So, if one were to heed his "considered" opinion, this requires the expense of planning, additional drive hardware for backup rotation, and possibly additional admin software licensing. And some people think PCs are cheaper?

Now, if you want to undersell the impact of this statement, go ahead. But, the fact remains that this gentleman did not utter this on his personal blog, or mention it in passing to a gentleman at a urinal next to him in some restaurant. *This was the God-damned InfoSec World conference!*

Did he say to do this in every instance of some form of attack? No. But there are OBVIOUSLY enough problems out there in the field on the Windows platform for an executive of this magnitude to inform leading security people _from around the world_ that Microsoft is incapable of dealing with all of the security issues resident within their flagship products, seem intent upon giving up on it, and that they are passing the problem down to their customers. Notice that the "consideration" to perform complete (and constant, I would say, depending on the nature of the data at hand) backups is NOT being suggested to be prepared in case a hard drive crashes for God's sake.

Jeez, were you Clinton's speech writer or something? "It depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is".


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> yep, i would agree
> gaming for os x will die
> 
> can't wait for halo 2 for windows.....
> cause you know it ain't coming out for os x


That's the extreme end-game (no pun intended) of my argument. I don't think that OS X games will entirely die out, though, but rather that the result will be very small houses developing casual games with cult followings. Think freeware and shareware items but not packaged retail boxes.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Gaming on OS X doesn't have to die--Mac developers have to start making ORIGINAL GAMES rather than port whatever comes out for Xbox/PS2/PC. Mac game developers are getting lazy.*
> 
> Remember Marathon? F-18 Hornet? Bungie and GraphSim were two companies that started out as Mac-only.


There are Mac developers producing original games but the economics of the market dictate that they make smaller, less complicated games. Your examples of Marathon and F-18 Hornet are from 10-12 years ago when Mac sales were still relatively good and the market share was higher. The environment was then able to sustain big development efforts. I applaud the developers who have been willing to stick it out for the Mac platform. :clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Microsoft does not recommend erasing and reinstalling for any and every problem that occurs with XP*. Your love for Apple either makes you stupid or blind. 


The quote from utbj was:
"Got a problem with Windows? Trash it and re-install. Afterall, that is what Microsoft now recommends..."
That is the biggest load of horse manure. It is misleading, false and the worst piece of advice/knowledge written here lately.
Rootkits are serious and not once did I write or imply that they are not serious. Hell, this is the first time I even mention them in this thread. A malware infection can be extremely grave on the PC but erasing and re-installing is not a solution for every little problem on a PC. 
Jeez, you are the ministry of disinformation of rolled into one little ball of apple love and fanboy aren't we?

Again, the common answer to problems with XP is not to nuke. It is part of an arsenal. 

What amazing is all the Apple fanboys posting here with full love-ons now that you can install XP on Intel macs - you'd think we have a bunch of repressed closet XP lovers here.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Jeez ArtistSeries, it's time for your meds. Instead of calling us Apple fanboys (BTW, there's an instant turn-off of a posts credibility on any board, let alone a Mac focussed board) perhaps you should look at the perspective of my original post?

I apologise for hurting your sensitivities towards Microsoft by recklessly condemning the solution to any Windows infections as being re-initialization of the drive but, as pointed out by Macaholic, the fact that a senior Microsoft employee made the statement at a public conference that re-initializing is the only way to remove some malware, is both shocking and relevant. The guy was talking to professional system administrators! If they can't effectively disinfect a Windows system, what chances does your average home user? I found the admission very revealing and so did Cringely.

Let's take a look at your post:


> That is the biggest load of horse manure. It is misleading, false and the worst piece of advice/knowledge written here lately.


If you want to literally dissect a sentence, you might want to start with that wonderful piece of drivel. It was you that blew it out of proportion. Hyperbole meet thyself.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

IronMac said:


> There are Mac developers producing original games but the economics of the market dictate that they make smaller, less complicated games. Your examples of Marathon and F-18 Hornet are from 10-12 years ago when Mac sales were still relatively good and the market share was higher. The environment was then able to sustain big development efforts. I applaud the developers who have been willing to stick it out for the Mac platform. :clap:


Ten years (barely)--not twelve. Marathon Infinity was released October of 1996, as was Hornet 2.0 (the one that was extremely popular) in July of 1996. This was also when Apple (infamously) lost hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars in ONE QUARTER! The Mac's marketshare fell from 4.6 percent to 2.2 percent upon Jobs' return. It's believed that Apple's marketshare is back to up around 4.8-5.1 percent.



> *1996:* Apple losses climb to 740 million dollars in the first quarter. Gil Amelio becomes president. Apple buys NeXT and makes Jobs an Apple adviser.
> 
> *1997:* Jobs replaces Amelio as president. Arch-rival Microsoft invests 150 million dollars in the company.
> 
> *1998:* Jobs revamps Apple's product line, churning out colorful 1,300-dollar iMac desktop computers designed with monitors and drives in the same casing.


1996 was when Apple tanked and was bleeding green, mi amigo (and was around the infamous clone debacle, oddly enough.)

So, yeah, it's great that some game developers are still around (Ambrosia, Pangea, Burning Monkey, etc.) but when was the last time they raised the bar? Let's see: Weekend Warrior was cutting edge when it was released in '96... what else? Burning Monkey Solitaire? Enigma? Escape Velocity? Kill Monty? Nanosaur?

All nice fun games that everyone can enjoy, but not exactly inspiring...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

used to be jwoodget said:


> I apologise for hurting your sensitivities towards Microsoft by recklessly condemning the solution to any Windows infections as being re-initialization of the drive but, as pointed out by Macaholic, the fact that a senior Microsoft employee made the statement at a public conference that re-initializing is the only way to remove some malware, is both shocking and relevant. The guy was talking to professional system administrators! If they can't effectively disinfect a Windows system, what chances does your average home user?


What you wrote above is different from:



used to be jwoodget said:


> Got a problem with Windows? Trash it and re-install. Afterall, that is what Microsoft now recommends...


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> What you wrote above is different from:


Okay now I'm tired. If you are not able to accept a little Microsoft bashing once and then, then just don't talk about it.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Ten years (barely)--not twelve. Marathon Infinity was released October of 1996, as was Hornet 2.0 (the one that was extremely popular) in July of 1996. This was also when Apple (infamously) lost hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars in ONE QUARTER! The Mac's marketshare fell from 4.6 percent to 2.2 percent upon Jobs' return. It's believed that Apple's marketshare is back to up around 4.8-5.1 percent.


Nice try but the timelines don't exactly mesh:

First of all, Marathon was originally released in December of 1994. That's over 11 years ago. Marathon 2 was released the next year for both the Mac and PC platforms due to Marathon's huge success within an environment where there were a lot of machines to play it on.

Second, the development time is about a year (calculated from the fact that it was about a year between Marathon and Marathon 2) which would mean that Marathon was conceived and developed in 1993. This is well before the Mac market started tanking which, according to the information that you bring up, happened almost three years later in 1996.

I agree with you that the Mac game market has been absolutely awful (I've said it often enough in any case.) but that's because there has not been enough of a market to sustain a big effort or to propel a game to enough of a bestseller status that it will be picked up on the other side. If you look at the timeline, 1996 was the start of the great Mac game drought and it's not a coincidence that that drought coincided with the drop in Mac sales.


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

A little off topic maybe, but the main reason (according to my niece's husband who is a game developer) for most game developing companies to create for windoze is sheer market share. even a lousy game can make a ton of money from windows users, whereas with a smaller market share a lousy mac game may not even break even. I'm paraphrasing here, but that the gist of it. (for you real programming geeks - "gist" pun intended) When macs get more market share more developers will create for mac.
I hope BOOTCAMP is going to increase market share, but i won't hold my breath.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Sorry, when I say Marathon, I meant Marathon Infinity which was released in '96.



IronMac said:


> Nice try but the timelines don't exactly mesh...


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Your love for Apple either makes you stupid or blind.


Uh-oh. Now you've done it. You've officially tanked this thread. The guy called me stupid -- and "a fanboy"! What is this? PC Mag forums?? :lmao: Woo baby! Buckle up! It's gonna be a BUMPY RIDE!

We'll start with some personal insults:

*Artist* Series. Why call yourself *Artist* Series? Smells like an oxyMORON to me. What is it supposed to mean? Artistic Perfection -- on a schedule? Or, does it just mean "pretentious, arrogant piece of ****" in french?.

And now, to soil the palette, a quote from you:



> *Microsoft does not recommend erasing and reinstalling for any and every problem that occurs with XP*.


YOU ARE WRONG. OBVIOUSLY, a reasonable person can see that they don't recommend it for EVERY instance, but they recommended it for some. And a HARSH recommendation it is. Therefore, the use of the word "any" in your poop is an erroneous one. Kinda like how corn sometimes winds up in poop.




> The quote from utbj was:
> "Got a problem with Windows? Trash it and re-install. After all, that is what Microsoft now recommends..."
> That is the biggest load of horse manure. It is misleading, false and the worst piece of advice/knowledge written here lately.


Do you actually _like_ making yourself look like a stupid ass? Is this some kind of personal program you're on? Some "Bizarro Tony Robbins" program? Because this is what you're inferring:

"HEY PEOPLE! Look out for UTBJW's recommendation to erase and install Windows EVERY TIME a banner ad pops up. You're all so STUPID that you just might take him seriously! And, you all don't really and truly know what you're doing on Windows, all you dual OS users at ehMac. So, I am here _to save you_ and say don't listen to UTBJW!"

See? That's called "SARCASM", ASS -- oops, I mean AS. And that is exactly what UTBJW did when he wrote that "misleading, false and the worst piece of advice/knowledge written here".

sarcasm

http://www.sarcasm.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm


But... you knew that.

'cause you LOVE the spotlight, and that's why you do this faux pious routine.



> Rootkits are serious and not once did I write or imply that they are not serious. Hell, this is the first time I even mention them in this thread


.

Uh oh. You just slit yer own throat, kid. For starters, WE mentioned Root Kits (via the linked article) WAY before you did. So, please take head and apply vigorously to wall.










Good. Now read on:

You _now_ say that root kits are serious... and the MS exec suggests that in these cases the only solution is to rebuild from scratch ("nuking the system from orbit". Love that line by him!)... but you say that "Microsoft does not recommend erasing and reinstalling for any and every problem that occurs with XP"!

Gee. What do YOU know that they don't?

Fool.

And then, there's Registry rot! I've read several instances where people like to reinstall XP fresh, just to wipe the Registry and start clean. So, there's _another_ reason to go through that entire, painful process if one felt their system was bogging down -- and I'll bet that some MS staffers do it!

And now, we come to this, perhaps the worst part of all:



> What amazing is all the Apple fanboys posting here with full love-ons now that you can install XP on Intel macs - you'd think we have a bunch of repressed closet XP lovers here.


For shame, AS. For shame  

You know, we hear that enough from stupid, immature PC fanboys out there who don't know what they're saying and don't know _WHY WE_ are welcoming Boot Camp that it is truly disappointing of you to say this, man. You know full well the reasoning behind our welcoming Boot Camp. *It is because it will aid switchers, grow the Mac userbase a bit, which in turn will make it more healthy for you and me ohfukinCANADA!*. Also, it makes the life of those who do have to work in the Windows world a little easier by only having to support ONE HARDWARE PLATFORM. All this you know. We have discussed it thoroughly, here. And yet you _whore_ your integrity by ignoring all this just to try to insult us. At the same time, you also infer that we've all been willingly hobbling along on an insufficient platform like fools, not able to do what we need to on a Mac just 'cuz we wuv Steve Jobs... or, The Mighty Blue Apple, and Boot Camp will FINALLY let us balance our bank accounts. Man, I do everything I need with a Mac, more people out there could do everything they need than those who couldn't with a Mac, and it was a viable platform BEFORE Boot Camp came along.

Boot Camp is a tremendously effective placebo for switchers. That's why we like it. Ya want an example? I had to run out to a concert at 7:30 (that's the reason I didn't shove your post up your a$$ sooner), but a few minutes before I left a colleague of mine called who hasn't used a Mac since _the Mac Plus days_. Guess what. He just bought himself a MacBook Pro -- BECAUSE OF BOOT CAMP! Oh, he's asking me about all kinds of stuff: .mac, iLife, email clients, etc. etc. He's looking to use the damned thing the way GOD meant it to be used: running Mac OS X on it -- but Boot Camp, after all these years and despite the fact that Mac OS X has been complete enough to kick ass and take names for about three years now -- is what ALLOWED him to FEEL SAFE in switching.

So... Boot Camp seems to be working already.

Now, do yourself a favour and STFU!
(watch him pick up and run with that "God meant it to be" line like I'm a religious extremist or something)


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Uh-oh! 1:21am and Artist Series is private messaging somebody. :baby: 

So long guys! :-(


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macaholic, I'm glad you so freely illustrate why some people think Apple zealots are a source of amusement. 
Your name is a apt moniker for the town drunk that blathers incessantly on one subject without making much sense. Alcoholic + love of Mac = Macaholic. And just like a real alcoholic who has said he is leaving, he returns time and time again, spewing his own kind of vomit. A rather unsightly scene.

Yes little fanboy, you did mention rootkits in another thread first - and if you could read and comprehend the English language, you would have noticed that I wrote "this is the first time I even mention them *in this thread*"
Notice the BOLD? Now study these words... IN THIS THREAD.


Amusingly, you try and make a point that UTBW is trying to use sarcasm and that he does not really mean that you have to nuke XP with every problem. I like how you then state:


Macaholic said:


> "Microsoft does not recommend erasing and reinstalling for any and every problem that occurs with XP"!
> 
> _Gee. What do YOU know that they don't?_
> 
> Fool.


Are you saying that MS is saying to erase and reinstall. It sounds like it.
The all powerful Macaholic somehow knows that MS really wants you to erase and reinstall XP for every problem that occurs with the OS. 


Of course you _know_ what I think of Boot Camp - except, once again, you are totally wrong. It's a habit of yours to place thoughts, inferences and whatever delusions you feel like.... as long as your little Apple world is not shattered...

I don't give a toss about Boot Camp. If/when I run Windows (XP or 2003) it's on a dedicated machine. I care more about slow emulation from Rosetta than I do about Boot Camp. And, until there are more universal binary applications, such as Adobe CS, I'm lukewarm about Intel on Macs.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> Uh-oh! 1:21am and Artist Series is private messaging somebody. :baby:
> 
> So long guys! :-(


:yawn:
Another one of your paranoid delusions?


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Nice twist of words there, jerk. But it doesn't wash. We already nullified your criticism of UTBJW and therefore qualified his little dig _before YOU even mentioned rootkits_.

Try to keep up.

As for the PM, seeing as I violated the forum rules it was reasonable of me to asuume that you'd go crying to mommy.

BTW, do you still think that an OS X archive and install is as severe a process as a complete wipe and reinstall of Windows and all your apps? Don't answer. I already know what it'll be: "yes". :lmao:

I will leave you to your pompous mental meanderings. Trying to engage you in reasonable discourse is like trying to catch fog in one's hands.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> As for the PM, seeing as I violated the forum rules it was reasonable of me to asuume that you'd go crying to mommy.


You really are full of yourself. 




Macaholic said:


> BTW, do you still think that an OS X archive and install is as severe a process as a complete wipe and reinstall of Windows and all your apps? Don't answer. I already know what it'll be: "yes". :lmao:


To quote once again what I wrote (as comprehension is very low with you).
"That's a rather disingenuous comment and taken out of context. No more valid than archive and reinstall on the Mac for every bug......"
So to try to answer your simplistic little musings, wtf are you talking about?
Did I equate an OS X archive and install with a erase and reinstall? No.
:yawn:


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Oh God, I'm sorry I'm back, ASS (but you called it when dissing my nickname), but this is simply irresistible. Perhaps you might find yourself choking on YOUR OWN VOMIT when you read Robert Cringley's column from two days ago:

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060406.html

Where he states:



> _"The crying shame of this whole story is that Microsoft has given up on Windows security. They have no internal expertise to solve this problem among their 60,000-plus employees, and they apparently have no interest in looking outside for help. I know any number of experts who could give Microsoft some very good guidance on what is needed to fix and secure Windows. There are very good developers Microsoft could call upon to help them. But no, *their answer is to rebuild your system every few days and start over*. Will Vista be any better?
> 
> I don't think so."_


Uh-oh! This legendary tech columnist used... _SARCASM!!!_ *HORRORS!!!* You better write to him and set his little train set straight.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

But, he's off the mark when he says:



> "I predict that Apple will settle on 64-bit Intel processors ASAP (with FireWire 800 please), *and at that time will announce a product similar to Boot Camp to allow OS X to run on bog-standard 32-bit PC hardware, turning the Boot Camp relationship on its head and trying to sell $99 copies of OS X to 100 million or so Windows owners.*"


Sufficient adotpion rate and native software support will be too slow for Apple to take the hit in hardware revenues if they released OS X to the general populace.

And I'm the one who is full of himself? Whose the gentleman who calls himself "Artist" around here? I'm surprised you didn't run with _"Artiste"_, for Christ sake.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> Whose the gentleman who calls himself "Artist" around here? I'm surprised you didn't run with _"Artiste"_, for Christ sake.


 what are you trying to get at?


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

this thread seems to have degraded to name-calling and pot-shots, so maybe we should try and get it back on track...

has anyone tried running bootcamp on one of the intel-mac mini's yet? i'm curious because i thought it might be a good solution for the living room where is want a mac hooked up to the tv, and also would like to use winxp once in a while for a couple of games. That and if i'm reading the rumour sites correctly, there may be a intel core solo ibook (macbook) coming down the pipes, which seems to be similar specs to the mac mini, only hopefully with all the cool new features of the MBP and an actual video card instead of shared video.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

thatcomputerguy said:


> this thread seems to have degraded to name-calling and pot-shots



_"Seems??!_

Gee, I thought we did a better job than THAT.


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

Macaholic said:


> _"Seems??!_
> 
> Gee, I thought we did a better job than THAT.


oh no - now *I'M* gonna get it... (tee hee)


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

LOL! No. It takes one possessing _supreme arrogance_ to bring my claws out.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I see you are still being an ohfukin ASS Macaholic.

But having your head buried so deeply in SJ colon, how can you not be??
So how do you like those Geekbench results where XP rules OS X on most benchmarks?

Being the resident little Apple ASS monkey around most do wonders for your ego. I mean your modus operandi is to post one or two pro Apple article, post one anti-MS article. Still, I figure you amuse the mayor, how else explain that he lets you $hit all over the place....


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

AS are you drunk? the above post seems really out of character for you.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

thejst, I have used the exact words that Macaholic so liberally uses.
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=381848&postcount=251
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=381831&postcount=245

To answer your question, no.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

fair 'nuff..


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> I see you are still being an ohfukin ASS Macaholic.


I learned from the master.



> So how do you like those Geekbench results where XP rules OS X on most benchmarks?


The realworld results were skewed, as the XP install wasn't leaden with malware.











> Being the resident little Apple ASS monkey around most do wonders for your ego. I mean your modus operandi is to post one or two pro Apple article, post one anti-MS article. Still, I figure you amuse the mayor, how else explain that he lets you $hit all over the place....


Hey, try this. *LEAVE*. We'll see if your inbox was as blessed as mine was by my virtual friends in here. Instead of wasting bandwidth like you, it seems that many people here appreciate the contributions I make (although I am sure there are some that don't like me, and that's fine). But all you do, ArtisteSeries, is take up space, and you might be happier here or here. Lord knows we'll be happier.

And, speaking of "we", I'm not that much different in my opinions as many people here. I suppose the different thing for me is that I probably read more news than most here and report it to the gang like the good little cub reporter I am. There's nothing wrong with that, as I am merely the messenger. But, other than that, I'm not much different than many people here. So, when you insult my tastes and passions, you insult MANY others in here. And such is your endearing charm. Keep it up!









Look, I'll not trouble you for comments on the severity of a Windows wipe-install versus the ease of an OS X archive-install. You tried to wiggle out of it, but initially you said that the Wipe-install is overkill, like doing an archive-install for any little thing. THAT's bunching the two together, where no comparison even exists. Hell I'll take an archive-install any day and count my blessings it aint a wipe-install the higher-ups are prescribing "every OTHER day".

So, I'll let ya off the hook on that.

And I won't pressure you for reaction to Robert Cringley's IDENTICAL comments. Cringley, who has been a paid and prominent tech commentator for years, with generally well respected insights. WTF have you done in tech compared to him? What superior tech insights do you hold compared to him? ZILCH. So, it must be very gratifying for UTBJW to enjoy such a quaified concurrence, as it gratifies me so... and only makes your defeat that much sweeter.









See ya in church!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Wow, so ehmac is some kind of popularity contest?

Better start posting drivel about how cool the iPod screen protectors are...


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Wow, so ehmac is some kind of popularity contest?


Not a popularity contest. Just people with like minds and opinions. That should be obvious to you (and it is... you just live for conflict).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> Does your sig mean for Apple to sell OS X able to run on ANY PC? If they did that, they WOULD die.


Then you better hope your Ph.D. deficient Cringely is wrong.


> Boot Camp, itself, is unexciting. So now you can start your computer running Windows or OS X — big deal.
> 
> The real reason people are in a tizzy about this news is that Mac users love their computers and Windows users, for the most part, tolerate theirs. So the Mac people think that this Apple software will demonstrate the inherent superiority of the product they love and will result in lots of Mac hardware sales to people who want to continue to use Windows. I don't think so.
> 
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/08/opinion/08cringely.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

man, who peed in this NY Times guy's cheerios?
he reminds me of the kind of man that yelled at us as kids for playing ball hockey on the street


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The guy reallllllllly doesn't get it.
Bet he doesn't own and iPod either.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/08/op...hp&oref=slogin :...
_...My bet is that once Apple has Windows Vista running smoothly on its operating system and helping its business sales, the company will try a more profitable avenue: marketing a version of OS X able to run on regular PC's that now use Windows...._

I thought he was making some fairly reasonable points until the paragraph above.
I think we can rest assured that Apple will never allow the Mac OS to (easily/efficiently/prettily) run on a Windows box. Seems so obvious that that would be the death of Apple.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

HAHA! You're funny, ArtistThingy! :lmao: 

The link of his column of April 8th you referenced tonight:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/08/opinion/08cringely.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

has recycled stuff from the column of April 6th I referenced YESTERDAY:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060406.html

Mine:
Boot Camp, itself, is unexciting. So you can boot into Windows or OS X, big deal. You can't boot into Windows AND OS X. You can't cut and paste data between the two OS's or even access the same data, as far as I can see. For this you'd need Virtual PC - a Microsoft product - if only a version existed for the IntelMac platform.

Yours:
Boot Camp, itself, is unexciting. So now you can start your computer running Windows or OS X — big deal. You can't run Windows and OS X simultaneously, so you can't cut and paste data between the two operating systems or even get access to the same data. For that you'd need a version of the program Virtual PC — a Microsoft product — redesigned to run on the Intel Mac platform.

Mine:
One reason why Microsoft isn't surprised by Boot Camp is because Microsoft has been working with Apple to make sure that Windows Vista runs well on IntelMacs.

Yours:
another reason Microsoft wasn't surprised by Boot Camp is that the company has been quietly working with Apple for months to make sure that Windows Vista (the next generation of Windows, which is supposed go on sale next January) will run on Macs with Intel chips.

----------------------

WOW! That's what _you_ get for skimming posts! You've brought nothing new to the table, AS, once again proving your bandwidth wasting ways. Seeing as you're having trouble keeping up, I suppose I'll go over this _again_:

Cringley thinks in his previous column that Microsoft has thrown in the towel on security and also thinks that Apple will sometime down the road sell OS X for any PC. TWENTY HOURS AGO, my responses to these two major points of his were -- in order -- AGREE, and DISAGREE. And, if HE can say that MS is passing the buck, so can UTBJW -- and _so can I!_.

Sorry man, but your BIG REVENGE POST is old news. Been there. Done that. So, if you're trying to rock my world, try againnnn...

Hmmm..... 

:yikes: 

Heeeey... _WAIT a minute!_

(dear readers, turn up your speakers, open this in a background tab then continue reading)

Wait just a gall-darn minute. You pulled that quote of mine -- "Does your sig mean for Apple to sell OS X able to run on ANY PC? If they did that, they WOULD die" -- from about _four dusty pages BACK_...

Frantically, you went out of your way, searching the thread to try and find something with which to grind your rusty axe...

bring my quote back to us here on page 1,956...

*and accost me with it!*
(but it backfired)

_This can only mean one thing!_ You're on a public vendetta; an ugly display of _desperate_ revenge, losing your grip with sanity as attempt after attempt *FLOPS!*

open in background tab

And the cops come on the scene, the psycho is taken away.

_And fade to black. Roll credits!_


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: 


Oh man. Too much!

Listen, I'm through here. This is all beyond rediculous. I just can't top this post, and I'm bored watching you make an ASS of yourself, AS. But please; remember where you are:










And, like I say in my business, ya gotta play the room, baby. Play the room.


I leave the floor to you. Don't strain yourself, and don't forget the lights when you leave the hall.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> The guy reallllllllly doesn't get it.
> Bet he doesn't own and iPod either.





MACSPECTRUM said:


> man, who peed in this NY Times guy's cheerios?
> he reminds me of the kind of man that yelled at us as kids for playing ball hockey on the street


It's none other than Macaholic's hero of the moment: *ROBERT X. CRINGELY*


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

both of you,

turn your computers off and go outside.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> both of you,
> 
> turn your computers off and go outside.


Yes, please stop. Consider this a fair warning.

Both you're arguments melt when you start resorting to childish and immature name calling.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Boot Camp Assistant is not detecting my legit Windows XP Professional CD (OEM version), the original nor the copy slipstreamed into SP2. Anyone having the same problems?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

did u try cleaning the cd?
does your legit copy have sp2 built in?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

the original legit cd is the non SP1/SP2 edition (bought it back in 2002) and looks almost brand new. I slipstreamed SP2 and reburned the CD. The slipstreamed copy works in Parallels.


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

i read about this on the weekend - seems to be happening a fair bit. here's what they are saying...

if you've created your partitions already, just reboot and hold down the option key.

It should give you the option to select the Windows CD. Keep in mind that every time the Windows installer reboots the system, you will have to hold option down and select the Windows partition to continue the install.

That same method can be used to get the computer to recognize just about ANY operating system install disk.

All that Boot Camp is doing when you click "Start Installation" is setting the cd in your drive as the startup disk and restarting the computer, so, if it won't recognize your Windows disk, then just do it manually. Go into system prefs, go to Startup disks, select your CD as the startup disk and then reboot. You will boot off the CD and be taken into the installer.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

good call "thatcomputerguy"


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> good call "thatcomputerguy"


thanks Macspectrum, but it's only a good call if it solves the problem. we'll see - let us know if that works Dona83


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

It works! :clap: Now everyone scold at me for not posting this in the Troubleshooting forum... ready, set, shoot!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

dona83 said:


> It works! :clap: Now everyone scold at me for not posting this in the Troubleshooting forum... ready, set, shoot!


cue Dick Cheney


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> yep, i would agree
> gaming for os x will die
> 
> can't wait for halo 2 for windows.....
> ...


Man, I missed some gamin' action here... I guess I was too busy playing Halo and UT2004. I'm sorry to tell you, but gaming on the Mac is not going to die and most game developers seem to agree. In fact we may see more people move over to Mac and therefore more gamers who want native Mac games.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/04/07/gamerreax/index.php

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/04/11/blizzard/index.php

Everybody seems to predict the end of the world everytime something changes. As Mac users we should be used to that. If that were true, there would be no Apple today. How many times have we heard of the downfall of Apple, or Apple would be bought out by this commpany or that company. 

And as computer gamers we've heard this before, how console gaming would kill PC/Mac gaming. Uh, yeah, right  , that'll happen. It didn't happen. PC/Mac games are still being made.

As for Halo 2, if it makes it to the PC, it'll make it to the Mac, but I'm not holding my breathe for it to even make it to the PC. I think we (PC and Mac) were lucky to get Halo.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

definitive statement on boot camp;


> When I want to get some real work done, I'll be using Mac OS X. When I want to play a game that isn't available for Mac OS or that runs poorly under Mac OS, I'll now be able to slither over to Windows XP.


:clap:


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> definitive statement on boot camp;
> 
> 
> :clap:


yep - that pretty much sums it up. good one.


----------

