[Unch]

Originally Posted by doublem9876 You still don't have to be so cold and bitter about it.

Why do you think that I'm "cold and bitter" about it?

[rasmits]

Originally Posted by akarodney Everyone also said that windoze on a Mac was impossible.

I'm no programmer, but I really don't think that's possible. The Mac partition would be formated in HFS+, and I don't think Windows apps recognize that, even if it were at all possible for a virus to reach the partition.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by akarodney Everyone also said that windoze on a Mac was impossible.

Um, no. They said it was unlikely. As in "Apple is very unlikely to ever make that decision." From a technical point of view, it was always *very* possible.

What you're talking about is impossible in the same sense that a rock spontaneously falling upward is impossible.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by akarodney Everyone also said that windoze on a Mac was impossible.

Wrong.

[torifile]

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!

Read the thread. Do a search for "macdrive" up at the top where it says "search this thread" and you can read my post on the issue.

[Mac Donald]

Originally Posted by Kickaha 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.

Have you met any real switchers? I know several --- some of them preferred windows after giving the mac a very fair try. Most of them ended up preferring OS X, but only after at least a month of getting used to OS X (and all bitched about lack of two button pad -- these are all laptop owners -- but that's another thread). Most of them would go back to using an old inferior-spec'd PC for a few days out of frustration. Had they had the optino to dual boot, I think many of them would have never made it to preferring the Mac -- they would just be using what they are used to --- Windoze. Point is: we all prefer Macs -- I honestly believe that is because they are a lot better, but part of it is because some of us have been using Macs for a long time and that is what we are used to. I, like most people here probably, am comfortable in both environments --- but there are subtle differences between the two that we don't notice.

Further, I assume you are being hyperbolic about "Windows developers crapping their pants" -- they are developing software for 94% of the market --- if, in the absolute best case scenario three years from now OS X has 20% of the market (which would be an extremely difficult , if not impossible, feat without licensing OS X), these developers would still be developing for 75% of the market (the other 5 percent I give to Linux). Hardly concern for crapping pants.

[Fooboy]

As long as apple still owns and develops its own hardware and OS ... there isn't much to worry about. Major 3rd party apps that are big hitters for Apple would have already bailed to Windows only software releases by now. They developed software for macs for a reason (OS X), and that reason has not gone away. Its just more flexibility for mac owners.

We must continue to mindless follow our leader, Steve. He might not have a 10% installed base yet, but he's got the mindshare of the media by the balls*, and his hands are hands of steel my friend.

He's seen the leprechaun, and he knows where da golds at.

*

[Mac Donald]

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.

Agree one-hundred percent --- people who disagreed with your statement do not remember when the G4 was at 500 mnz for two years or something. And that's why the Intel switch (while I think dangerous) was pretty much a no-brainer when IBM said no to making a G5 portable.

[Kickaha]

And yet, it's still past tense. ie, irrelevant unless you want to do a historical analysis. It means *squat* moving forward... and it certainly doesn't have a blasted thing to do with BootCamp.

You may as well argue about Apple ][s vs. IBM PCs for all the relevance it has.

[turbulentfurball]

The BBC are unsurprisingly giving Boot Camp some coverage, including a comments page. It's interesting the guage the general public's view of this in comparison to Mac oriented communities such as AN. Most of the replies are generally quite positive:

I use a PC at the office and a Mac for everything else, this makes perfect sense. Mac OSX is two years ahead of MS Vista, it's stable, has no known virus vulnerability and just ... well it just works. Windows is OK, a bit gaudy and colourful but it's OK, mostly though I need Windows to communicate to equipment at work... I think this is a wonderful idea.

However, the usual detritus shows that many people's knowledge of Apple products is somewhat lacking:

i think its a good idea but i won't have an apple because the mice are difficult to use

How very insightful.

If money was no object I would buy a G5 tomorrow. They are beautifully engineered pieces of kit, make a PC look like a bag of bolts that has been thrown together. The option of being able to run Windows makes the package even more appealing. Sadly the cost of the hardware and then all the applications mean that I won't be splashing the cash any time soon.

I assume most people can notice the glaring error in this posters assumption.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Mac Donald Have you met any real switchers?

Um, yeah, a couple dozen I can think of offhand. And I can think of at least that many who would love to buy a Mac, but wouldn't because it would mean buying two machines. Now they have one less reason not to.

Further, I assume you are being hyperbolic about "Windows developers crapping their pants"

Once again you apparently didn't read what I wrote, and instead just took away what you wanted to.

Relevant and critical portion you left out... "if my userbase was at all inclined to be Mac-curious."

For certain developers, this means nothing. For others, it will be a valid concern. I was only addressing those developers. If I was writing, say, a consumer-grade photo organization application, and I knew that a good number of my users were at least *curious* about Macs, I'd be looking at iPhoto as my next competitor, and thinking about how to sway those users to stay with my app. If they make the leap to MacOS X, I'm sunk unless I can offer them an alternative. It's either that or convince them not to migrate at all, and that's going to take offering a better product than they can get on the Mac. Either way, iPhoto is now my competitor too.

For other realms, such as CAD software, you're right, it means very little.

Details are everything. I was very careful to put them in, you could at least do the courtesy of reading them and including them in the ensuing reply.

Seriously, does that make more sense now? I pared it down to specific subgroups of developers on purpose.

[Unch]

Originally Posted by Kickaha And yet, it's still past tense. ie, irrelevant unless you want to do a historical analysis. It means *squat* moving forward... and it certainly doesn't have a blasted thing to do with BootCamp. You may as well argue about Apple ][s vs. IBM PCs for all the relevance it has.

You could actually try reading my orginal post (not just my reply to Chucker). If the drive behind the current mac market means nothing to you, then I'm glad you're not in charge.

Nothing has changed. Really, nothing has changed. Developers could of pulled the plug years ago as much as they can tomorrow.

This is all pointless hysterics.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Unch You could actually try reading my orginal post (not just my reply to Chucker). If the drive behind the current mac market means nothing to you, then I'm glad you're not in charge.

I was replying to Mac Donald, not you. Sorry you missed that.

Nothing has changed. Really, nothing has changed. Developers could of pulled the plug years ago as much as they can tomorrow. This is all pointless hysterics.

On that, we agree.

Your assertion that the hardware is still overpriced, and that people buy Macs *only* for the software, is just plain wrong in my experience, however, for now, today, for the new Intel machines. I know more than a few Windows heads who have been positively *drooling* for something like BootCamp so that they can purchase a MacBook Pro and run Windows on it. No, I'm not kidding. Yes, they're in the minority. Yes, it means jack-all to the bottom line for now, either way.

Your assertion was correct at one time, but when PC magazines start running benchtests on MBPs to compare them against Wintel laptops... both running Windows... and say "Wow, this is actually a heck of a contender for just running Windows, period, and the price is good too", your 'overpriced/underpowered' claim goes out the window. Hopefully that trend will continue.

That is the only point that I took exception to. The rest, you were spot on about.

[World Leader Pretend]

Aghhh!! No bluetooth keyboard/mouse support if you're running windows on your Mac!!

Requirements To use Boot Camp Beta, you need: An Intel-based Macintosh computer with a built-in or USB keyboard and a built-in trackpad or USB mouse Mac OS X 10.4.6 or later The latest firmware update available for your Intel-based Mac At least 10 GB of free space on your startup disk (single partition) A full, single-disc version of Windows XP Home Edition or Professional with Service Pack 2 or later...

I hope by the time Leopard rolls around they get this squared away, I don't want my workstation cluttered with cables!

[CFP]

You can rightly call me anal, but -

please, Unch, it's could have, not could of. Though I generally agree with them, reading your posts makes me grind my teeth.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by World Leader Pretend Aghhh!! No bluetooth keyboard/mouse support if you're running windows on your Mac!! I hope by the time Leopard rolls around they get this squared away, I don't want my workstation cluttered with cables!

Oh, it's even more fun than that... if you're on a MacBook Pro, there is apparently no way to right-click without an external USB device.

Remember how I said in another thread that this would be the most logical approach - to offer a way to install XP, and then offer an appropriate driver to do the mapping? Well... we've got *half* the solution...

Grr.

[Nick]

Macs are "higher quality" hardware-wise and tend to pack more features but that does not mean the "value" is less and therefore "more expensive".

[Gargoyle]

I am still amazed at the reactions that always happen when someone menations Apple and Microsoft in the same breath... Anyways, I'm not getting involved in all that!

This is working really well (Just copying steam files over now - all 12 gig of them - for gamers interested). The built in iSight shows up as a USB imaging device, but like it says on the tin, it doesn't work and if you try to use it there is a instant BSOD.

Best thing for this is to disable it in device mangler.

[World Leader Pretend]

Originally Posted by Gargoyle Best thing for this is to disable it in device mangler.

This "device mangler" sounds pretty scary..

[Gargoyle]

Oh yes! very scary. It has often been incorrectly labeled as "Device Manager". But IMO, it deffo mangles more than it manages

[Gargoyle]

Just tested Counter-Strike Source. I get similar framerates on the iMac @ 1680x1050 as I do on my PC @ 1280X1024. However some of the GFX settings were lower (NoAA, and Trilinier filtering instead of 4x anistropic). Deffo bed time for me.. cya!

[Robo]

This is great news! I can use my Mac to play PC games and test compatibility of my webpages across platforms. Well, not my Mac, per se. It's a G5. But when I get an Intel Mac, I'm sure I'll use it.

This also makes my sister a lot happier. She's probably going to get a MacBook. She knows OS X rocks, but she was worried about not being able to run some Windows-only apps. She feels a lot better about getting a MacBook, now.

[World Leader Pretend]

Wow, pretend that you're a computer noob and you go to your local CompUSA to buy a new desktop computer. Given these two options, which one would you choose??


Dell XPS 600

$1,839

20" Screen
Pentium® D Processor 820 with Dual Core Technology (2.8GHz)
Nvidia 6800
1 Gig DDR2
250 Gig SATA HD
DL DVD/CD-RW
Windows XP

Link



iMac 20" Intel

$1,874

Intel Core Duo 2.0GHz
ATI x1600 256MB
SuperDrive
I Gig DDR2
250GB SATA HD
Wireless Built-in
iSight+Microphone+Speakers.
OS X and Windows XP (for a price)

Link

Besides the fact that the iMac is Teh Sexy, the stats arn't very different either... interesting!

All those people who are bashing Apple for selling inferior hardware specs for a premium need to look again, IMO.

[MCQ]

Wow, this thread got big in a hurry!

Boot Camp gives me another reason to pick up a Mini or iMac later this year.

Originally Posted by World Leader Pretend Wow, pretend that you're a computer noob and you go to your local CompUSA to buy a new desktop computer. Given these two options, which one would you choose??

Interesting that you mentioned CompUSA given that you can't buy a Dell there. Also, that iMac price doesn't include the cost of XP Pro or the cost to have them pre-install it.

The whole price battle isn't worth it - the comparison changes constantly based on deals that Dell has for a given day.

[ghoti]

Originally Posted by World Leader Pretend Wow, pretend that you're a computer noob and you go to your local CompUSA to buy a new desktop computer. Given these two options, which one would you choose?

That's easy: the one the sales drone talks you into buying, because he gets the higher commission.

Hmmm, I think it's time to set up a website describing how you get rid of the Windows partition that was preinstalled on the iMac you bought at CompUSA, and how you can claim your money back ...

[chucker]

Originally Posted by World Leader Pretend Wow, pretend that you're a computer noob and you go to your local CompUSA to buy a new desktop computer. Given these two options, which one would you choose?? Dell XPS 600 $1,839 20" Screen Pentium® D Processor 820 with Dual Core Technology (2.8GHz) Nvidia 6800 1 Gig DDR2 250 Gig SATA HD DL DVD/CD-RW Windows XP Link iMac 20" Intel $1,874 Intel Core Duo 2.0GHz ATI x1600 256MB SuperDrive I Gig DDR2 250GB SATA HD Wireless Built-in iSight+Microphone+Speakers. OS X and Windows XP (for a price) Link Besides the fact that the iMac is Teh Sexy, the stats arn't very different either... interesting! All those people who are bashing Apple for selling inferior hardware specs for a premium need to look again, IMO.

Er, the iMac price doesn't include Windows XP. The ability to run it, yes. The license to install and use it, no.

[Wrao]

Originally Posted by chucker Er, the iMac price doesn't include Windows XP. The ability to run it, yes. The license to install and use it, no.

Yes, but the other option in that scenario if you wanted to run windows XP and OS X would be to spend $3600 on computers.

[Mac Donald]

Originally Posted by World Leader Pretend Aghhh!! No bluetooth keyboard/mouse support if you're running windows on your Mac!! I hope by the time Leopard rolls around they get this squared away, I don't want my workstation cluttered with cables!

That's why they call it a beta. I am sure by Leopard, and probably sooner, the drivers will be there. Anyone remember the public beta of OS X --- no wifi even, and a lot of other drivers were missing as well.

[chucker]

As for Unch and Kickaha: Unch said "late 90s", which for me is a period of, say, '96 to '99. To illustrate, it's also, for the most part, a period of time where Macs were still beige and Old World. Kickaha then responded, saying that this was "true during the G4 problems", which Unch agreed with, calling it the "G4 fuck-up".

Except, of course, that that didn't happen in the "late 90s", but the "early 00s", so either Unch was suddenly talking about an entirely different thing or simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

I should "of" known.

Which is it? Where was Apple supposedly so overpriced? Where's the numbers that aren't vague? Where's the comparisons? How come nobody who claims this ever gives proper proof? And why are we discussing this in a Boot Camp thread, where it's completely unrelated?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Wrao Yes, but the other option in that scenario if you wanted to run windows XP and OS X would be to spend $3600 on computers.

Well yes, of course; I just wanted to point out that it was misleading. When you add Windows, the price increases to at least 2 grand. Aside from that, the two are very nicely comparable indeed.