Apple to Possibly Charged for Boot Camp?

[nixgeek]

Got this via Slashdot:

Apple to charge Mac OS X Tiger users for final Boot Camp release?

According to MacScoop, Apple might be charging current Tiger users on the Intel Macs for the final version of Boot Camp. The suspected cost will be $29. Those that purchase Leopard will already have the final version of Boot Camp included.

Any thoughts on this? Personally, I think Apple is trying to milk just a bit too much from we Mac users. Since most people will probably upgrade to Leopard, why not just give it out for free so that those current Intel Mac users can use it freely if need be? Especially after the whole thing with charging Mac users just to enable the 802.11n function that was there already (even if it is only 2 bucks), Apple is starting to rub me the wrong way. Not enough to drop the Mac, but I don't like what I'm seeing so far.

[MacFreak]

So what.. Thankful for apple allow us to run Window on our mac. I am more than happy pay 29 buck..

[nixgeek]

So you're willing to pay 29 dollars for functionality that comes in other computers for free? Now, I'm sure there will be some sort of free boot manager out there (I think rEFIt is one of them), but it would be nice to see some official support from Apple without having to pay for it. They never used to be like this from what I can remember until recently with all this success. Seems like they're willing to charge for almost anything lately.

And as for running Windows on the Intel Macs, there are various other ways that would probably be better than having it as a dual boot option (Parallels, Q, etc.). The more I see what Parallels and some of the other virtualization solutions have, the less I think I would be prone to dual boot.

Either way, I find it silly to make Tiger users pay for this. Ah well.

[Lt Major Burns]

[off topic]

i've seen people having two user accounts, with parallels running XP in fullscreen on one user, and then using that as a way to have both OS's running at the same time, with the cube effect and everything just working. looked cool

[/off topic]

[Captain Code]

I don't see the problem. It has been known all along that it's going to be included in Leopard. Most people would have thought that implied that Tiger would be left out. Now you can get it for a low price if you really want to.

I don't know what's going to happen to the beta now. I assume that if you've enabled the ability to boot to windows it's not going to go away after some certain date.

[nixgeek]

Originally Posted by Lt Major Burns

[off topic]

i've seen people having two user accounts, with parallels running XP in fullscreen on one user, and then using that as a way to have both OS's running at the same time, with the cube effect and everything just working. looked cool

[/off topic]

But you see, I would pay for Parallels since it does something that the Mac can't do, which is run both operating systems at the same time using virtualization for the guest operating system. To have dual-boot functionality shouldn't be something I have to pay for as an extra, especially considering that the MacBook and MacBook Pro offer a lot more at a higher price than your run-of-the-mill PC laptop that can dual-boot right off the bat (excluding the difference in BIOS and EFI) despite their lack of running OS X.

No worries for me, I guess. It's possible that eventually we might see an alternative to Boot Camp (albeit not as easy as Boot Camp, but good enough for tech-heads like me) from the FOSS community. But I guess what bugs me is Apple's principal about it. Hopefully this rumor is just that....a rumor.

[MrTAToad]

I'll be upgrading to Leopard anyway. I can see a charge being made if extra things are added (driver updates, compatability with Vista (x32 & x64) etc), then it may be worth it. However, if you just get bug fixes then it will be Apple trying to get more money out of people for no real reason.

[DeltaMac]

Sure - even if true - small price to pay. Parallels is a lot more. And you still have to buy Windows, too. I think it's possible that Microsoft would require Apple to charge - seems like a typical microsoft idea.

Boot Camp is not similar to the new enabler for 802.11n
Apple noted from the beginning of sales of the intel Macs that Windows could be used. This is not true of the 802.11n, which Apple did not publicize. So, the idea of 'new, added functionality' which provides added value, hence, Apple charges for that added function. If Apple chose to mention that when the Core 2 Duo Macs were released, you would not be hearing about a charge now, I suspect. This is completely different than the process used to announce Boot Camp. (the preceding are entirely my own opinion, with no support by actual facts )