[neumac]

Originally Posted by Wrao personally, I don't see the point at all outside of running games. I would reckon most mac users will run windows on a dual boot and either never use it or forget they did it.

Neither do I, but then again we're Mac users (I assume). Windows users are more likely to look at it as a "backward compatible" transition from XP to Mac. They are going to want to use, and perhaps continue to use, Windows-only software. This will only be reinforced if new Mac software is not available.

Software developers are businesses and $ are the bottom line. If Adobe does a cost/benefit analysis and decides that the number of sales lost by not developing Mac versions of their software is offset by the savings in development costs, chances are good that you won't see the Mac software.

That said, the folks at Apple are privy to mounds of data that we've never seen and they've likely gone over this one with a colonoscope. It still makes me nervous, though.

[neiltc13]

Has anyone actually tried any games with this yet on any of the new Intel Macs?

[faramirtook]

So, uh, does it run linux?



But seriously, this could be a Very Good Thing™ for those those weirdos that want to use Linux on their Macs, like Wickers and I. . We won't have to muck around with grub to get it to work on EFI. Mucking with yaboot is annoying enough in an G5.


I think it's very mature of Apple to allow people to ease the transition to OS X, and I belive that this may cause a greater influx of switchers.







Now all they have to do is advertise.

[ssdd108]

Originally Posted by neumac Software developers are businesses and $ are the bottom line. If Adobe does a cost/benefit analysis and decides that the number of sales lost by not developing Mac versions of their software is offset by the savings in development costs, chances are good that you won't see the Mac software.

Oh my god. Will this just die already. Developers will not stop developing because of this. I could see that possibly if it were virtualized but its not. Its a dual boot. Macs will not ship with Windows. Mac users are not going to use Windows as their default environment.

Take my graphics art class that uses Macs. Why would they upgrade their systems to Intel macs, install windows and then install Photoshop. That is insane. They would just buy cheap PC's. Why bother with the Mac at all.

There are so many artists that swear by the Mac and prefer OS X. With OS X you get things done without technical hassles. Productive artists aren't going to want Windows.

[Partial]

anyone do this and play hl2 yet? I am curious as to how it runs!!

[ShadowOfGed]

Hey everybody, I'm still alive! Anyway, here's my take on what's going on:

For starters, let me make this clear: Apple is not a stupid company.

The Microsoft MacBU undoubtedly knew about this either at or shortly after last year's WWDC. It would be summarily stupid for Apple to hide this from Microsoft. Microsoft is in charge of some big products, like Office and VirtualPC, and you do not want to alienate them by hiding from such a huge announcement from them, especially when it has a direct impact on their business.

Furthermore, we know that Microsoft and Apple—in some capacity—are working on VirtualPC 8 together. Perhaps this is in the form of Boot Camp, but I sincerely doubt it. I bet Apple will provide Boot Camp for people who want to dual boot (gamers), and Microsoft will provide VirtualPC 8 utilizing Intel's new virtualization technology for engineers and business users who don't want to reboot for their one or two pieces of Windows-only software. Again, Apple cannot affort to step on Microsoft's toes in terms of Office, so they will not overrun VirtualPC's turf, for business (and I suspect also for legal) reasons.

Let me reiterate: Apple is not a stupid company.

Just as it is apparent to us that this could be a risky move for Apple, it is a given that Apple knows the risk. I imagine they have conducted formal and informal surveys and studies of both users and developers to assess the outcome of a move such as Boot Camp. If developers said they would abandon OS X ports, you bet your butt Apple would have ditched Boot Camp. If users said they would tolerate companies saying "you must buy Windows and use Boot Camp to run our software on a Mac," they also would have ditched Boot Camp. We now have Boot Camp, so I assert that Apple is confident that developers will not abandon OS X, and that consumers will not tolerate someone like Adobe requiring the use of Windows instead of OS X.

Apple clearly has Vista in their sights. Leapord will come out with guns blazing, and I imagine some searing flyers at WWDC '06 and MWSF '07. Boot Camp is intended to provide a "cushion" for switchers, or merely access to Windows-only apps for people like me: I need OrCAD Capture and PSpice, as well as LogicWorks on a regular basis. I am a student, so the time required to reboot is acceptable. For business customers, it is not, so Microsoft will still be able to sell the new VirtualPC 8 with hardware virtualization. Make no mistake: Apple is still targeting consumers and students, even with Boot Camp; if Apple plans to target the enterprise, it is still far far away in Apple's plans.

Also, I will say that the availability of an official, non-hacked way to boot XP on Intel Macs has removed any concerns I have about purchasing a new MacBook Pro. I am a student of electrical engineering, so being able to run some of our Windows-only simulation software is critical. VirtualPC currently does not run on Intel Macs, so being able to boot Windows natively is a huge boon; it provides me with a Windows environment running at native speeds, instead of the slow, emulated environment of VirtualPC on PowerPC Macs.

I know that I am not alone in this matter, so I suspect Apple knows this will at least boost hardware sales. There are many engineers who would own Macs if it weren't for the Windows-only engineering software, and this now provides a way around that. I suspect you will see them switch to Macs and OS X as their primary machines, using Boot Camp to run their Windows software when they must.

All that aside, I repeat: Apple is not a stupid company.

They wouldn't release this if they had any indication that it will threaten the OS X ecosystem. Also, this development carries a hidden benefit. Apple is concerned with beige-box PC owners trying to hack OS X so they can run both OS X and Windows on their PC. Well, now that you can officially run both Windows and OS X on an Apple Mac, why on earth would you put the effort into an illicit, illegal, and unsupported hack on your beige box? Just do it on your high-performance, well-designed Apple Mac! Even the "unofficial" benchmarks show that MacBook Pros outperform their generic PC counterparts, I do believe.

Sure, there are some who will do it for the "cool" and "1337" factors, but I suspect this move by Apple just cut down significantly on the draw toward hacking OS X for generic PCs. This has direct implications to the OS X business at Apple: more legitimate copies of OS X will be sold instead of circulating pirated, "generic x86" copies. Furthermore, making it a feature of Leapord instead of an add-on will cause Leapord to sell more copies. Perhaps a bit backhanded, but definitely a brilliant business move. This all is indeed in Apple's best interest—if it weren't, Apple would not have done it.

And to quote ssdd108's assertion, in line with my comments earlier:

Originally Posted by ssdd108 Developers will not stop developing because of this. I could see that possibly if it were virtualized but its not. […] Mac users are not going to use Windows as their default environment.

Well said! I'm sure Apple also knows this; we would not have Boot Camp if Apple thought it would threaten the Mac and OS X businesses.

Whew.

[psmith2.0]

My friend will appreciate this (and is exactly in the group of people something like this is probably targeted for): she's a Mac user and loves it, but the military/government in which she works is highly Windows-based. Over the years, she's run into some compatibility issues, resulting in - usually - her having to stay late to do work on the office PC and things like that. She couldn't bring it home (or e-mail it to herself) and work from home in her 'jammies.



But now (and she's looking to get a new Mac in 2006) the notion of having her new Intel-based iMac or iBook be able to boot directly into Windows when she needs to is a real boon for her.

She's not going to want to buy/maintain a separate PC for those few times she runs into these hurdles. She'd rather reboot her Mac, do what she needs to do, then boot back into the right OS. The one she enjoys/prefers.



Microsoft will benefit some because there will be some Mac users having to go and buy XP (or Vista) at some point, if they want to do this.

[thegelding]

yes, redmond shouldn't be upset by this...they want to sell XP and Vista and Office...now they can sell XP and Vista to mac users and Office stays the same...so no biggie to them...as a matter of fact they could go up to almost 100% of the market place if they sell windoze to PC users and now also to mac users...

the down side is if developers only make pc software...and, contrary to some here, that could be a concern...obviously some do this already...will more join suit? will aspyr shut down? no bigger for dual booters, but what of us on powerpc hardware? what of intel mac users that don't want to buy XP?

it is likely to be ok as apple seems to be getting universals and such from developers (perhaps a build from pc to mac is much easier now?), but it will still be interesting to see how this plays out in the end

g

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by ssdd108 Oh my god. Will this just die already. Developers will not stop developing because of this. I could see that possibly if it were virtualized but its not. Its a dual boot. Macs will not ship with Windows. Mac users are not going to use Windows as their default environment.

ABSOLUTELY.

Look, if anything, this is a fire under MS's butt to get VPC out the door and working as well as possible, ASAP. They *want* to make working with Windows apps as seamless as possible in MacOS X if, for no other reason, than it makes an argument for devs dropping Mac support. "Well, just fire up VPC..."

Until today, they could just say "Well, it's not ready... go buy a cheap PC running the real live Windows experience!" and ka-ching, another chunk out of Apple's marketshare.

Dual booting though, when the data can only be moved (by default) *FROM* Windows *TO* the Mac?

Don't fool yourself, this is strictly a one-way migration tool at this point to wean users off of Ballmer's big sweaty man-teat.

[Mac Donald]

In the mid '90s Apple had a dual-booting Mac into OS 8 and Windows 95 --- it did not get a lot of people, if any, to switch. I agree that Apple is not a "stupid company" but it also is not infallible --- it does make mistakes, even Steve Jobs makes mistakes (see the Cube, the Apple III, etc.). This move is definitely a risk --- a big risk --- in that no doubt some software companies who were considering a port OS X will now not do it. I don't see how anyone can doubt that. Whether big players like Microsoft and Adobe will follow this path, only time will tell. . . .

In the end, Apple probably is doing this because of all the hoopla about dual booting caused by the contest. They must have figured that there was now no doubt that Windoze would run natively on Macintels and that the drivers would all get made. They figured that they would rather control it than let the hackers do it. So don't think that they just did this because they thought it would be a great idea -- they did it because they really have no choice.

Again, only time will tell. I personally am beginning to think that maybe the intel switch was not worth it now. (But of course, they really had no choice given that IBM and Freescale weren't doing any real further development on their chips. . . .)

[neumac]

Originally Posted by ssdd108 Oh my god. Will this just die already.

No, because there is some risk in what Apple is doing and the question of what effect this change will have on how consumers buy and use Macs and how developers meet those consumers' needs is a legitimate one.

[dw90]

will an OEM version of Windows SP2 work or do i have to shell out for a retail version?

[rasmits]

Originally Posted by dw90 will an OEM version of Windows SP2 work or do i have to shell out for a retail version?

Most OEM CDs are locked to the specific computer model they came with, so I doubt it would work.

[Kickaha]

If I were still a Windows developer, I'd be crapping in my pants right now, if my userbase was at all inclined to be Mac-curious. (I Am Curious - Aqua)

Those users will buy a Mac, and suddenly, you're not just competing against Windows apps, you're competing against Mac apps too. Ones that are, generally, better thought out than your average Windows app. And it's not like they are just casually trying out the Mac apps... THEY BOUGHT A MAC. Obviously, that's their first interest, at least at the outset.

BUT... unlike if your users stay on a Windows box, once they make the move to Mac, they're much less likely to come back to your app because, obviously, you're not on the Mac. (And given the one-way nature of the data migration, they're not likely to move things back over to the Windows side just to use your app again.)

This could be very interesting for some Windows developers that suddenly find themselves competing head to head with iLife components, for example.

[rasmits]

How many times has hell frozen over in the past 2 years? It's surreal.

[Unch]

My god, what a bunch of whinging girls.

People buy Apple because of the software, not the hardware. Apple's hardware has for the most part been overpriced shit since the late 90's. I could of bought a far better machine for less money each time I purchased a Mac, but I didn't. Why? Because I like OS X, I don't want to run Windows anymore.

As long as people use OS X, software will be made for it. Boot Camp makes fuck all difference, Adobe could of dropped OS X at any time before now, and yet they'd still be in the same position as if they drop it in light of Boot Camp. Had Apple announced that XP (or Vista) would be installed by default on all new intel Macs THEN you might have something new to worry about. This and the intel switch change nothing.

I also noticed something subtle about BootCamp, it seems that you have to actively do something in order to boot Windows, OS X boots automatically. It doesn't look like you can set it to always boot Windows, or pop up at boot automatically. Kinda, "You can boot Windows if you want, but we're not going to make it easy for you". It seems more of a showcase of Apple design than anything else.

[Mr Beardsley]

The announcement of Boot Camp seems a lot like the annoucement of switching to Intel chips. Its a big thing that we didn't see coming, and that could have some big impact on the computing landscape, but in the end will probably not change the Mac experience much. While there may be some fear that there won't be any more Mac apps, I highly doubt that companies will kill/move projects that are currently making them money. Businesses that make money selling software to Mac users will continue to do so.

[Oompa Loompa]

Read this 'very unbiased' article http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1946652,00.asp

Yes, again the Apple Death Knell Counter counts more death pronouncements for Apple once again! This is just another very smart hat-trick from Apple: why is Microsoft willing to play this game with Apple? Hell, we might as well see Dell computers pre-loaded with OS X Leopard in a years time?

BTW: this PC-magazine freak calls Apple Computers 'The Borg'... he must be a trekkie nerd.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Unch People buy Apple because of the software, not the hardware. Apple's hardware has for the most part been overpriced shit since the late 90's. I could of bought a far better machine for less money each time I purchased a Mac, but I didn't.

Bullshit.

Thanks for playing.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by chucker Bullshit. Thanks for playing.

To be fair, this was true for a period of about 4 years.

It was either priced higher, but a much better performer (dawn of the PPC age), or, *very* recently, priced right in line, but also right in line on performance.

There were the dark days though, when Motorola couldn't ship even a fricking speed bump for what, 18 months??

[Unch]

Not Bullshit, it's called, cold hard reality.

Since the G4 fuck-up Apple has lagged behind in the hardware stakes, badly. All those desperate dual G4s while PCs were flying off into the GHz, the gap between x86 and PPC performance per cycle shrinking.

No amount of slight of hand, benchmark bending, "cool features" or RDF can hide this. I could have bought a way more powerful PC for less when i got my eMac. FACT.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Unch I could have bought a way more powerful PC for less when i got my eMac. FACT.

'Could have'. Not any longer, for the machines that have migrated to Intel already. Past history.

[Gargoyle]

Games tests comming right up. I have done this a bit quick I will re-run the tests on my PC and again on my iMac later paying more attention to make sure the settings match.

Here is the initial 3dMark2005 results... http://service.futuremark.com/compare?c=880378_1

I'll be installing Steam and HL2/Counter-Strike Source ASAP.


Edit: I am very impressed with the CPU results - go core Duo! (Remember the pentuim D I have in the PC is also Dual Core and 64bit!)

[doublem9876]

Originally Posted by Unch Not Bullshit, it's called, cold hard reality. Since the G4 fuck-up Apple has lagged behind in the hardware stakes, badly. All those desperate dual G4s while PCs were flying off into the GHz, the gap between x86 and PPC performance per cycle shrinking. No amount of slight of hand, benchmark bending, "cool features" or RDF can hide this. I could have bought a way more powerful PC for less when i got my eMac. FACT.

You still don't have to be so cold and bitter about it.

Originally Posted by ronmexico Anyone have a theory as to how a windows virus would effect the mac operating system on the same machine?

I was going to ask the same question!
In the past virii could only 'mutate' through coding...but what if getting a virus on the windows side and then using Mac OS would cause some sort of effect, similar to virii mutating in nature?
That's a scary thought!

[Kickaha]

Dang! Looks like the GPU isn't quite up to par, (but you'd expect that given the chips) but *lookit that CPU score*! Lovin' it.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by akarodney I was going to ask the same question! In the past virii could only 'mutate' through coding...but what if getting a virus on the windows side and then using Mac OS would cause some sort of effect, similar to virii mutating in nature? That's a scary thought!

It's also impossible.

Because of how the two OSs are partitioned and separated, something running in the Windows environment can't do squat to a Mac data partition without some futzing about by the user beforehand to set it up that way.

Secondly, the whole concept of a virus 'mutating' because another OS is run is... silly. On so many levels.

[Unch]

That doesn't change anything with my argument though.

[rasmits]

Macs have a "games mode" now! Wait 'till I tell all my friends!

Everyone also said that windoze on a Mac was impossible.