# BootCamp run Windows on Mac



## mi5moav (Apr 5, 2006)

Well, I guess it's time to buy a mac...what can't it do?

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/apr/05bootcamp.html

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


----------



## Cat (Apr 5, 2006)

On Apple hardware we can now run: 1) Mac OS X 2) Linux 3) Windows. Wow. With virtualization coming up, this won't even require a reboot anymore. Amazing!


----------



## symphonix (Apr 5, 2006)

Some of us never thought we'd see the day.

I liked this note:


> *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.


----------



## Cat (Apr 5, 2006)

*grin* 

More funny quotes:



> EFI and BIOS
> 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.



Apple is a Hardware company: this move is going to net them BILLONS of cash. 

<fanboy>I predict Apple will hit double digit marketshare within a year!</fanboy>


----------



## Stridder44 (Apr 5, 2006)

WOOHOO!!


----------



## Quietly (Apr 5, 2006)

Who saw that one coming?


----------



## ora (Apr 5, 2006)

Wahay! I was disappointed when it looked like this would be difficult, now I can buy the next MacBook release with a clear conscience. I wonder if this means Apple are making Windows drivers for the graphics cards they use, as that seemed to be an issue with the earlier hack to get XP running on the intel iMacs.

Cat, glad to hear what you say about Apple being a hardware company, i often end up explaining my view on this to people. For my own use I much prefer doing my daily tasks in OS X but having windows on the machine would really help me justify paying for the hardware.


----------



## nixgeek (Apr 5, 2006)

Wow....look at that Vista!... ::ha::

I'm interested to see how this will work (I've already read about the virtualizations theory regarding this, but I would love to see it in action).


----------



## RGrphc2 (Apr 5, 2006)

crap crap crap....

my credit card is itching to get an iMac for my studio or a Mini to replace my dell.

crap...


----------



## Thank The Cheese (Apr 5, 2006)

duude, seriously, that is huge news. Now I"m glad my iBook died and I have been "forced" to buy a MacBook. Really exciting stuff. 

If apple had just released this a couple weeks earlier that'd have won the $12,000 prize 

Does this mean, because it's an official Apple release, there are no driver issues like with the unofficial version (ie. you can use games and 3D apps easily). Someone with an Intel mac please try it out and post back here!


----------



## limike28 (Apr 5, 2006)

From the release all the drivers for the Apple hardware will be included.  Definitely would be cool to be able to boot windows on the rare occassion I need it.  

Still have to say there was something about this that made me cringe though.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Apr 5, 2006)

Who would have thought all you Mac users would be flipping out so much to be able to run Windows?

Sheesh... you complain and complain about Apple's keynotes, you bash Jobs' business decisions, you bitch that Apple doesn't patch security holes fast enough... yet you say Mac OS X is your "OS of choice" -- and now look at you: jumping up and down and screaming with excitement like a giddy 3rd-grader because you can now put the buggiest, most insecure operating system in the universe on your Mac computers.

Very, very ironic to say the least.


----------



## Thank The Cheese (Apr 5, 2006)

I think we're excited about the prospect for apple, rather than for ourselves. This could be a serious turning point for Apple, and could put it on the road to some serious success in the long term. 

I'm very excited about the prospect of throwing out my PC and using the dual boot for those times when I need to test websites in Windows, when clients give me windows-only files or self-extracting Zip files, and of course games too. 

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think it's blind happiness about being able to run windows.


----------



## nixgeek (Apr 5, 2006)

For someone like me, this is a great thing.  I love OS X, but having to use another computer to do tech support and troubleshooting on either Windows or Linux (if Linux is going to be supported on Boot Camp) is a pain.  Being able to switch operating systems using my Mac would be awesome.  It's even more of an incentive to purchase a MacBook Pro in the near future.


----------



## simbalala (Apr 5, 2006)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Who would have thought all you Mac users would be flipping out so much to be able to run Windows?
> 
> Sheesh... you complain and complain about Apple's keynotes, you bash Jobs' business decisions, you bitch that Apple doesn't patch security holes fast enough... yet you say Mac OS X is your "OS of choice" -- and now look at you: jumping up and down and screaming with excitement like a giddy 3rd-grader because you can now put the buggiest, most insecure operating system in the universe on your Mac computers.
> 
> Very, very ironic to say the least.


Agreed. I find it interesting but not important to me. I've been using Macs since the late 80s and I've never found that I missed anything I needed or wanted. If I had I could have picked up a cheap Windows based box long ago but I never have.

I guess it may be significant for games but I've never been interested in games, I've better ways to spend my time.


----------



## Cat (Apr 5, 2006)

The BBC is already on to it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4880022.stm

Of course, ArsTechnica, Appleinsider, MacRumors, ThinkSecret and the entire "MacWeb" are all abuzz.

El Diablo:
Well, there's lots of software out there that is not available on a Mac (and I'm not talking just about games), which means people need a Windows PC alongside their Mac if they want to use it, or cannot use a Mac at all. Moreover, for testing purposes, it is quite usefull to be able to boot different OSes on the same machine. Also, I saw a remark somewhere about schools and universities, which could easily buy a classroom full of Macs now and reboot as required, instead of having two classes one, Mac and one PC.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Apr 5, 2006)

Yes, I fully understand that there is software available for Windows that is not available for Macintosh.

Yes, I fully understand that y'all's "excitement" is simply excitement for Apple, and not because you can now run a horrible operating system on your Macintosh.

Yes, I fully understand that, in order to maintain compatibility with the morons that haven't switched to FireFox or something better on their Windows box, that this may help _slightly_.  I mean, you were testing just fine before this happened -- now, you must actually _reboot_ your computer and wait for it to boot Windows before you can test... then another reboot to get back into Mac OS X.  How is that _better_ than having a PC sitting next to you for testing purposes, fully booted, ready-to-go?  Or VirtualPC, booted and running IE?  Now, to test your sites on a PC, you actually have to spend _more_ time, since you have to reboot the computer... twice.  That's wonderful -- something to get really excited about.

I just expected this kind of reaction from a Windows-person who was thinking of switching but wasn't sure.  Not from people who use Macintosh computers day-in and day-out and whose main operating system is NOT Windows.

Kind of like getting excited about that new 8-track player you got installed in your Porsche.

It's interesting, and it will help "switchers," but damn people, curb your enthusiasm a little.  It's _Windows_, for crying out loud.  Whoopee!  Now you don't have to have an ugly beige testing box sitting next to your Mac... let's all go ballistic over it!  It's the best thing since sliced bread!


----------



## nixgeek (Apr 5, 2006)

This doesn't mean that Mac users will be switching from OS X to Windows.  DuH!

I'm not going to switch over to Windows from OS X.  For me, OS X by far is the best thing around for users.

However, for someone like me that does deal with more than one OS, this is a great convenience.  If I have to test out software, relegating myself to one or two other computers aside from my Mac is not conducive at times.  Being able to have those operating systems available to you for whatever reason is a good thing, especially if there is no Mac version of the applicaton at the moment and you need to get things done.  I only have to deal with one computer which for the most part will be used in OS X, but will give me the ability to be more efficient in helping my users.


----------



## nixgeek (Apr 5, 2006)

To add to what I posted, for some people this won't mean anything.  For those users, all I can say is don't use it.  They might do it as a novelty, but once it wears off that's it.

Heck, I have Windows and Linux installed on a Celeron system I have at home.  It's almost always on Linux.  I have Windows on there but I barely use it.  it's a "just in case" kind of thing.  Same scenario we'll probably see with the Boot Camp on the Intel Macs.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Apr 5, 2006)

What does this mean for Mac users??? 

Well, it means you can have an easier time convincing your boss that buying a Mac for work isn't a bad investment.

It means that switchers can "switch back" on their new Apple hardware if the need arises.

It means I can carry around one computer for web development that can allow me to develop, debug and deploy web sites/apps for ANY platform. 

On the down side, it may mean that developers may choose not develop for Mac OS X, instead pushing people to "just install Windows" to run their app/view their website. 

Also, on the downside, it means Microsoft gets that much more money by selling a copy of Windows to a Mac user. 

Me? Well, it's installing as we speak on my 2 day old MacBook Pro 2.16ghz. For me, it means getting rid of the Windows box on my desk at work, and using my MBP for everything.

Sweet.


----------



## Cat (Apr 5, 2006)

> How is that better than having a PC sitting next to you for testing purposes, fully booted, ready-to-go?


Saves space on my desk and ~$ 1,000.- and will someone please think of the child... er, laptop users? 



> Or VirtualPC, booted and running IE?


At the very least it saves me the Virtual PC license. Also, I'd like you to try running Autocad, 3DSMax, or any other 3D graphical program (including games) in VPC. 

I'm not just talking about wesite testing, but also about cross-platform developing. I does prevent the necessity of having to actually buy, install and maintain a second machine for quite a number of people.

Moreover, just you wait until we get virtualisation and the other OS (whatever it may be), is just a cube effect away or runs like Classic.

BTW. I guess people will be able to run various flavors of linux within a week using Boot Camp.


----------



## lbj (Apr 5, 2006)

serpicolugnut said:
			
		

> On the down side, it may mean that developers may choose not develop for Mac OS X, instead pushing people to "just install Windows" to run their app/view their website.




And that's precisely why I'm having a hard time getting excited about this.  I hope Apple has already planned to invest even more heavily in pro-Apps now that developers actually have a reason to "restructure" in a more efficient manner.

I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Shookster (Apr 5, 2006)

This is good news for me as I try to use Mac applications as much as possible, but some excellent Windows apps that I use for work don't have a Mac equivalent unfortunately. This means that before, I couldn't just "buy a cheap biege box" but had to buy an expensive PC because they're pretty demanding. Now I can sell my PowerBook, buy a MacBook Pro and sell my two other Windows laptops. When the Intel PowerMacs come out, I can sell my PowerMac and my desktop PC and buy an Intel PowerMac. Obviously, this would save a lot of money.

When I mention to people that I have two Macs, they say that they're gorgeous machines. They never express any interest in buying one though, and I think that's because of their unfamiliarity with Mac OS X. If a major retailer started selling Mac Intels that boot into Windows, I think a lot of people would buy them in order to run Windows. The fact that Mac OS is also running on their system would encourage them to play with it and it could result in them switching.

This is great news for Apple but I reckon game developers may be lazy and stop porting to Mac. When the average person thinks of Macs, he immediately thinks that they don't play games, and moves on.


----------



## nixgeek (Apr 5, 2006)

Current Mac users and developers aren't going to switch from being mac users and developers to Windows users and developers just from this.  People develop for and use the platform that they love (let's exclude money out of this...it will come back in a minute ).  They develop for and use the platform that they are most comfortable with.  Truly, it depends on the person.

As far as the money thing is concerned, sure there might be more money in Windows developent, but consider that you'll be developing on a platform that's COMPLETELY inundated with software at the moment, good and bad.  You'll be a speck in the sea of other software developers even though you were one of the greats in the Mac area.  This is something that I only see possible with large software manufacturers like Adobe and others, not with smaller devs.  Plus, if it's not your preferred platform, why would you suddenly dump the one you DO prefer in order to make money?  That's like taking a job that you despise only for the money.  Sure, you'll be stinkin' rich, but you won't find any pleasure in it and it will diminish your desire to continue on.

Just my two cents on the subject...


----------



## mw84 (Apr 5, 2006)

> On the down side, it may mean that developers may choose not develop for Mac OS X, instead pushing people to "just install Windows" to run their app/view their website.



This is also what I was thinking about. Why develop software for multiple OS (Windows and OS X) when you can simply stick in a little Mac OS X paragraph in the back of your manual saying 'boot into Windows now'. Especially if we see some sort of fast user switching that will simultaneously switch OS, I mean, you wouldn't even have to reboot. 

I can also see a lot of new OS X users who have only ever used Windows before not giving OS X a real chance. For me it took a few weeks atleast getting used to OS X before I felt comfortable using it, in those first couple of weeks if I had the option of just saying f it ill just run windows instead, I can't say for sure that I wouldn't have done it. Don't get me wrong I now don't think I could stand using Windows on a daily basis again but at the time it was the only OS I was really familiar with.

A lot of people don't like change (changing OS for example) but do like Apple's 'pretty' hardware.


----------



## Mikuro (Apr 5, 2006)

I thought from day 1 that this would be a good idea.

My brother is looking to buy a computer soon. He doesn't have one at all at the moment. He uses Windows at work all day; nothing he can do about that. He told me he would probably buy a PC, not a Mac, because at this point that's what he's more used to, and it'll integrate better with his work. 

But now, I don't think it will take much convincing to get him to buy a Mac, because he can just run Windows on it if necessary. Best of both worlds.

I think a lot of users will feel more confident in buying Macs because they know they can boot Windows. People are afraid to buy Macs now because...well, there IS no "because" a lot of the time; they're afraid because they don't know better. Knowing that a Mac can run Windows will be a big security net for these people (that's gotta be the best way you can fit "Windows" and "security" in the same sentence ). I mean, why would anyone by "just another PC", when Macs can do everything any PC can, and much more.

And after buying a Mac, nobody will be quick to install Windows for two main reasons:
1. It'll cost money. Windows is not cheap.
2. It'll take effort. Many users never even update their OS after buying a machine.

These are two real barriers. I think they're big enough to stop a lot of people from installing Windows, but not big enough to keep them from buying the Mac in the first place. This is very marketable. It will reel in a lot of Windows users, and a lot of them will never be Windows users again.


----------



## jwoods (Apr 5, 2006)

I don't have a USB mouse and keyboard, So....I guess I am out. (Apple wireless keyboard and mouse)  

I don't think developers are going to abandon OS X....if anything this prompts developers TO develop for OS X (and Linux).  As someone else mentioned, why be a small fish in a big pond?  

Just my opinion, but I think this is going to open the market up to Apple, and I'm sure they think so.....otherwise this wouldn't be happening.  Apple has made the right call in a number of areas over the last few years.  Some mistakes yes, but overall....not to shabby.  It's going to be interesting to see what happens.

I wonder.....how long do you think Apple was planning on doing this?  Since the intel announcement, or more recently?


----------



## fryke (Apr 5, 2006)

Waaaah! The world's end is nigh! RacerX was wrong!! A Mac *IS* a PC after all!!!  ... Oh well... I saw some "people" on CNBC talk about this "issue", and apparently, Apple is "going to offer Windows on Macs", that you wouldn't have to reboot into Windows and that Apple would make sure you wouldn't get Windows viruses etc. Can CNBC be sued for saying this? Ah, no. It's TV. It's their job to disinform...


----------



## ScottW (Apr 5, 2006)

I think this is a good thing for many reasons. I have met a ton of people who have always loved Apple hardware, but for whatever reason wanted Windows. They can now buy a Mac, dual boot it, even if always in Windows and guess who just got a slice of the Wintel pie, Apple did.

If anything, they might "play" with OS X on the weekends or fiddle around with it for fun and actually enjoy it.

I also need a Windows box around for one purpose or another (rarely, but when I do, I do) and this presents the best of all the worlds to me. Once I upgrade to a Intel Mac, I can take my Intel Dell (which is aged) and give it to the trash man. Once system, all operating systems... and its all from Apple, who could be happier?


----------



## whitesaint (Apr 5, 2006)

Is this why 10.4.6 takes so long to boot the first time?  Im thinking yes...


----------



## Mikuro (Apr 5, 2006)

This will have another advantage: market share. Every Mac sold, even if it's only used for Windows, will count toward the Mac's market share, not Windows'. Market share numbers have been skewed to favor Windows for years; this might knock 'em a little closer to the truth.

And higher market share numbers means more respect in the business world. Even though market share numbers are not reliable, businesses act like they are.


----------



## Convert (Apr 5, 2006)

Of course you'll have to buy a separate copy of Windows, but in my opinion that's better than just having those recovery disks provided with most PCs. I'd rather just have a clean disk with the entire O.S in its normal form.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Apr 5, 2006)

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing -- I'm with the rest of you in believing this is a _good_ thing.  It's just not a _phenomenal, ground-breaking_ thing.  The way this thread started, you'd think that Apple was giving away free PowerMacs or something the way people were getting *over*-excited.  Hell, we here didn't get that excited here when Tiger made its debut, but we're going to shout from the top of the hills now that we can put the worst OS in the world on our Macs?  Yikes... are you Mac users or not?!


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Apr 5, 2006)

it's really good news because we don't need that windows pc anymore.  we won't have any temptation to buy a dell any longer.  Half Life on an apple cinema display. (without the dell)


----------



## Satcomer (Apr 5, 2006)

I am waiting for the day that a Rosette style integration with Windows on OS X. That would be the killer app.


----------



## chevy (Apr 5, 2006)

+9.87% on Nasdaq today.

No other comments.


----------



## karavite (Apr 5, 2006)

I can see myself doing this (having a dual boot Mac), but it just doesn't seem right... I am so used to my Macs running this beautiful powerful OS, so to see the same machine now run Windows is, well, it seems a sin and an insult to the  Mac! I may just keep my cheap PC on the side! Then again, do you think we will someday see, "Fast OS switching" complete with the rotating screen effect?


----------



## Jimbolgs (Apr 5, 2006)

It's a master stroke by Apple.

iLife is GIVEN away with the OS X.

iLife is pound-for-pound the best value piece of software available for the home user.

The ability to create music and combine it with your existing music collection, photos and video, then easily share it DVD or on-line, can make anyone with even the most limited amount of creativity into an artist.

People keep going on here about "the OS X", yes it's beautiful and sturdy, but it's the stuff you get free with your mac these days that sets it head and shoulders above the rest, and when your average switcher/PC user realises what his new computer can do in "OSX mode" there will be no going back to grey boxes.

Good work Apple, goodbye Dell.


----------



## Cat (Apr 5, 2006)

> Yikes... are you Mac users or not?!


 You know, El Diablo, I have been thinking, ... I think we should see other peopl.... er, OSes. Given the possibility of booting into Windows when required/desired gives the users a lot of interesting options. 

According to http://www.macitynet.it/macity/ , after the firmware upgrade and running the BC assistant, Linux live DVD's also work like a charm.

Apple/Steve did the right thing: release windows compatible macs and enable normal users to run windows, instead of waiting like a sitting duck that Leopard comes out and "evil hackers" do the same thing to OSX86 as they did to win-on-Mac, namely succesfully making it work. By the time Leppy comes out, people are not going to try to hack it and install it on PC's because a lot of interested folks will already own a Mac. This way Apple earns a lot of cash on hardware instead of a little cash on software. Moreover this would increas the marketshare, while the other way round it would probably decline. 

Also Apple is doing this now from a position of (relative) strenght instead as from a position of weakness and necessity. It will help grow marketshare and overall awareness and appreciation of the platform. This will lure developers _to_ Apple instead of driving them away.


----------



## fryke (Apr 5, 2006)

On the other hand, 80% of people will get it wrong. They think Apple has "given in" and I wouldn't be surprised if we'd hear about customers being p** off because Windows apps didn't run on Macs "out of the box" etc. Yeah I know: It's not Apple's problem, but then again, it suddenly is... So what's the next step: Really having to bundle Windows with Macs or at least offer the option at the Apple Store? Ugh...

Still: I think it was generally the right thing to do.


----------



## Captain Code (Apr 5, 2006)

Dvorak is going to claim he's right after all that Apple is now switching to Windows  

The Mac will be the ultimate development machine.  Once the iBook replacements come out this year I'm going to be putting Windows on it since I get it for free through my school anyways(Evil MS  ) but probably won't use it that much in Windows.  It'll just be there in case I need it.

I hope that Apple really does get virtualization going because that'd impress a lot of Windows people that the Mac can do that.  They go gawgaw over Expose, imagine just launching Windows in a window on the screen at native speed or running Windows on a second monitor and OS X on the other.


----------



## Cat (Apr 5, 2006)

> On the other hand, 80% of people will get it wrong.


As we are playing the quote-a-random-number game, I'll go on the record as saying "80% of people will not care". But the 20% who _do_ care are designers, coders, alpha geeks who will happily ditch their PC's and get a Mac.

The new Apple Macintosh with Intel CoreDuo processors: it's the only machine capable of running all major Operating Systems. If they manage to squeeze out Leopard before X-mas shopping spree, marketshare will make quite a jump between November and January.


----------



## HateEternal (Apr 5, 2006)

I'm pretty pumped, defintely a good move for Apple.

On the negative side, now I really want to dump my G5 and PC laptop for a MacBook Pro!! Dammit, this is the last thing I need right now! I was just starting to get comfortable with my current setup!

They need to make a smaller MacBook anyways, I <3 the size of my Acer, 12 inches < 1 inch thin and 3 lbs. That is the way protable computers should be. However if I were to replace my desktop, the bigger computer would be accepetable... especially with that sexy 15 inch display.


----------



## Veljo (Apr 5, 2006)

This comes as a complete shock to me, but I'm loving it. It'll make Macs so much more appealing. Apple just need to market this right.


----------



## lordmantown (Apr 5, 2006)

Interesting news I think. Bit of a suprise but I know at least one person who I can blag into buying a mac now!

Will be good to see how it all integrates. eg. will the 'pictures' folder mean a pc user could have all their pictures stored how they are used to, only to discover when they boot in osx that they suddenly get to use all the iLife apps, with no need to import anything etc. Does that makes sense?

Basically, a PC user may suddenly wonder why they never switched before.

Also it will be interesting to see when Leopard ships in relation to Vista. From what I understand Vista will need a good PC to run to it's full pottential... I would laugh very much if people find Macs run Vista better than PCs?

Surely that could happen... if all the speed test things are right and it runs natively...

So... buy a mac that runs 3 operating systems... and Vista really well... and you get the iLife stuff... or get a filthy grey door stop.

Nice.


----------



## Mikuro (Apr 5, 2006)

Even with this development, I'm still hoping for VPC. I'd much rather use Windows 98 or even 95 than XP, personally, and I don't have nearly enough use for Windows to justify shutting down OS X for it.

All I really want with a decently-performing Windows installation is the ability to play games. And I'm not talking about you young whippersnappers' fancy-schmancy three-dee games. I'm talking about good ol' DOS games, mostly. Some newer games, too, but nothing that needs a >500MHz processor. VPC (for PPC) has such terrible sound and video support that it's useless even for ancient games. DOSbox has awesome compatibility, but it's dog slow (on PPC).

But Windows XP is not as valuable for this purpose as Windows 95 or 98. I might end up running VPC under Windows to emulate an older version of Windows, and MAN that is just _messed up_.


----------



## Perseus (Apr 5, 2006)

Are we forgetting that "PC people" may just still see Apple computers as being way too expensive?

I still don't understand why a company like Adobe (or anyone else) would continue to make software for OS X when Windows is available?


----------



## fryke (Apr 5, 2006)

Well, some "PC people" will _always_ claim Apple's computers are too expensive. And compared to build-your-own no-brand PCs, they certainly are. But then again, that's a whole different discussion and a very bad comparison. 

Adobe will continue to make Adobe Software for Mac OS X as long as enough people want to have Adobe Software on Mac OS X. Whether a Mac user _can_ also theoretically buy 300 USD operating system software to run Windows does not matter to Adobe as much as how good _sales_ are on the Mac platform (running OS X, of course, since that defines the "Mac platform"...).


----------



## maz94protege (Apr 5, 2006)

Thats crazy, i dont have an intel mac yet, or maybe never will, but im dowloading it just to save it for later.....i remember the old macintosh's used to say "WINDOWS COMPATABLE" on them for Win 3.1 but that was over 10years ago. I bet in another few months we may see WINXP Compatable on the new macs....

INSANE


----------



## eric2006 (Apr 5, 2006)

maz94protege said:
			
		

> Thats crazy, i dont have an intel mac yet, or maybe never will, but im dowloading it just to save it for later.....i remember the old macintosh's used to say "WINDOWS COMPATABLE" on them for Win 3.1 but that was over 10years ago. I bet in another few months we may see WINXP Compatable on the new macs....
> 
> INSANE



Yep, they'll have to add all kinds of warning stickers to the intel-macs  with this new development.


----------



## powermac (Apr 5, 2006)

Not sure how I feel. In short, I am afraid people, other than us, are going to treat OSX as a novelty, and few people are going to invest in OSX. Developers slack off on OSX versions of software, coupled with poor support & updates. Eventually, as cost efficient as it is for companies, lets have one team of developers working on one version of our product. 
I understand that Apple is a Hardware company. Their bottom line is sales of their computers, and other hardware products. If there is little reason to use OSX, in reality how many non-Mac people are going to purchase a Mac to run windows? 
Just some ranting.


----------



## dave17lax (Apr 5, 2006)

I do think there are a lot of people that would love to get a mac, even ones that aren't developers, designers, etc. I've got 3 people in mind that I told today- not that they will run out and buy one immediately, but it's now on the horizon. 
I really think that this will turn the mac into the special-forces-swiss-army-knife of computers. Let's just repeat it again: Natively running windows, with working drivers, etc. 

At the very least, it will spur some purchases by a lot of people who wouldn't have switched to a mac (or replaced a mac) this year.

I do agree that the avergage consumer won't just jump on this- you can get a $300 PC at GeneriCompuMart. But it might just turn it into another must-have like the ipod.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Apr 5, 2006)

Cat said:
			
		

> You know, El Diablo, I have been thinking, ... I think we should see other peopl.... er, OSes. Given the possibility of booting into Windows when required/desired gives the users a lot of interesting options.
> 
> According to http://www.macitynet.it/macity/ , after the firmware upgrade and running the BC assistant, Linux live DVD's also work like a charm.
> 
> ...


Like I said, I'm making a simple point: this Boot Camp is a *good* thing.  I've never disputed that.  It's useful, cool, and rather nifty.  Yay.

My point is that people are jumping up and down with excitement like this is the greatest thing to happen to Apple -- just look at page 1 of this thread.  I just think it's a little over-reactive.  I mean, whoopie -- we can run Windows natively now.  If you already use Windows, then why the exorbitant amount of excitement?  It's _Windows_ for crying out loud.  So you can finally sell that crusty beige box and do everything on your Mac.  That's rather cool.  And, if you never did run Windows and were only exposed to Mac OS X, well, you're not missing out on anything, so why all the excitement?

Remember: Windows is the bad guy.  We don't want Windows, remember?  Sure, it brings another level of compatibility to the platform, but big-friggin' whoop -- it's not a full-screen video iPod, it's not "Asteroid", it's not an 8-core PowerMac.  It's _Windows_.  Perhaps *I'm* just overreacting to some of the reactions here, but it's scary that some people would get so excited over being able to Windows on their Mac.


----------



## Perseus (Apr 5, 2006)

> a very bad comparison



What is a very bad comparison? I am saying the price of Apple's computers may not bring as many PC switchers as some may think even with the idea of Boot Camp. Those people may stick with what they have. I am only venturing a  guess here.


----------



## dave17lax (Apr 5, 2006)

> so why all the excitement?



Ahh I get it- 
So yeah, I'm excited because I have to use windows in my industry. I come home from work and have can use the mac, but must then switch computers and do some more work on windows. Maybe it's more efficient to have two computers up than toggling OS's on one machine, but it annoys me, I don't want a computer lab settting in my home anymore. 
My main work computer will probably always be some bleeding edge PC, but for side work at home, I want to combine forces. I've got 2 macs, a PC box and a PC laptop at home. I'd rather just have one, that's all.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 5, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> Waaaah! The world's end is nigh! RacerX was wrong!! A Mac *IS* a PC after all!!!  ... Oh well...


Hopefully I'm very wrong.

We'll find out soon enough though.

If we start seeing developers like Adobe and Microsoft drop the Mac versions of their software saying "just run it in Windows" then we can pretty much kiss our platform goodbye.

Boy I hope I'm wrong! But we'll have our first chance to find out soon enough. The first hurdle is Adobe's CS3. And as Microsoft releases the Mac version of Office a year after the Windows version... and that version is on hold for Vista, that'll be the next hurdle.

I'm pretty sure that game developers are going to jump on this as soon as possible... so don't plan on many games in the future. They were dragging their feet to begin with, so this gives them the answer to anyone asking for Mac versions of their games.




Of course, it is likely to get worse for everyone else before it gets bad for me... I can make do with old computers, old operating systems and old software for years after a platform has disappeared.


I hope I'm wrong, but something tells me that most of you are going to be Windows users in the future. 


You know the old saying: _careful what you wish for... you might just get it._


----------



## mindbend (Apr 5, 2006)

OMFG.

That was my reaction. I never thought I'd see the day. I thought all the predictions of this over the months were insane. I was wrong.

For me, this is a HUGE thing. I hate Windows as much as the next fanatic, but the fact is we live in a Windows world. I have Windows clients. For one in particular I bought an HP laptop specifically for the purpose of running Powerpoint for PC (cuz the Mac version, nice as it is, is not as compatible as M$ would have you believe). So I blew $1300 just to run POWERPOINT! (Well worth it BTW, paid for itself immediately, but that's besides the point). 

Now, with Boot Camp, I can use the same laptop to run these stupid native Powerpoint presentations for Client A and then reboot and finish my Final Cut edit for Client B. That is MONSTROUS for me and my staff. We are all drooling over the potential for this.

And while I agree with Diablo's reminder of the irony (it really is ironic after all), the fact is that this ability means more money for me as well as convenience. HUGE. So I guess I'll just close my eyes and cringe as Windows boots, while blissfully listening to the cha-ching, cha-ching in my mind.

-----

Yes, the Apple machines will continue to be more expensive, so that will continue to be an issue for those people that don't bother to actually compare feature sets and only see ridiculous-get-what-you-pay-for $399 Dell offers. For those of who want style and a well-made, feature-rich box, this is huge. 

Did I mention how huge this is?

-----

I too am slightly concerned about this possibility about developers dropping OS X, but I have to defer to Apple, who have clearly thought about this a lot more than we have. They must be comfortable with it. Also, at least for the next few years we're safe since Adobe is on board and so is M$ (and others). As long as there is demand (from lunatics like us) and the numbers  say profit, we'll be fine.

Just remember how many games have been ported to Mac even with our low market share. There must be just enough of us to make it worth it. That will remain true.

-----

In closing.

Wow.


----------



## symphonix (Apr 6, 2006)

I can't see any way that this can be a bad thing. I won't be booting Windows, simply because I don't need to. And I'm sure for a lot of people it won't mean much. But for those switchers who have been sitting on the fence, to afraid to take the step to Mac, the last of their fears has just evaporated away.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 6, 2006)

One of the reasons I think a lot of Mac users are not going to see this as bad until... well, it becomes bad, is that they haven't had experiences out side of the Mac platform.

For example... why isn't there a Linux version of Adobe's Creative Suite? There are almost as many Linux users as Mac users, and it really wouldn't be that hard for Adobe to make a Linux version. So what has stopped Linux users from getting this software?

The answer is painfully simple. Adobe tells them to use the Windows version if they want it.




			
				mindbend said:
			
		

> I too am slightly concerned about this possibility about developers dropping OS X, but I have to defer to Apple, who have clearly thought about this a lot more than we have.


Are you so sure about this?

Apple is a corporation. And they have interest which are not always the same as those of Mac users. It was one thing when Apple was totally dependent on the Mac platform... these days they just don't have enough eggs in this basket to keep me from questioning moves like this.

I look at SGI (they started to die when they started selling Windows based workstations), Be (could never get past the _Applications Barrier to Entry_ on the PC hardware platform), NeXT (who lost many of their developers when NEXTSTEP started co-existing with Windows on PCs) and OS/2 Warp (whose compatibility with Windows apps kept developers from writing native OS/2 apps) and can't help but think this has to be the worst possible thing Apple could do to the platform.


I don't blame most of you for having a short term (and self interest) view of this. As consumers, that is how most people are going to think. But from a long term (community interest) view, I see this as having the potential to go bad in so many ways.

Oh well, I'm glad this solves some of the _today_ problems for those of you who have been needing both platforms. Odds are this is going to solve these problems in the long run too... just not the way people are expecting.


----------



## Cat (Apr 6, 2006)

> you're not missing out on anything, so why all the excitement?


I'm missing TraDOS (word on windows only, translation tool), I've had to wait 3 years for the Civ III expansions, I need to access someone else's PC to test my websites for IE/Win compatibility.



> Remember: Windows is the bad guy. We don't want Windows, remember?


 Is that a given principle? I remember Microsoft being the good guy, starting out as a Mac developer ... and they never abandoned the platform ... we don't want to use windows exclusively in day to day work, but we might enjoy tinkering around with it or playing the occasional game on it.



> If we start seeing developers like Adobe and Microsoft drop the Mac versions of their software saying "just run it in Windows" then we can pretty much kiss our platform goodbye.


That's not going to happen. This move by Apple will first of all increase their marketshare. That will make it _less_ likely that developers will leave the OS X platform. While Macs have <5% of the overall computer marketshare there are two other significant numbers here: 1) Installed base (all the people you can sell your software to) and 2) domain specific marketshare (Apple is ~50% rather than ~5% of Adobe's market).

Moreover, developing for windows means developing in a market where there are already _a lot more_ competing developers and products, developing a succesfull product for the Mac is actually easier in that respect. Look at the huge success of the OmniGroup. They have been developing exclusively for the Mac for years, what could possibly happen to make them abandon the platform. They have got a lot of expertise and with each succesive generation of OS X it has become easier to develop for the Mac: XCode, Core-video, audio, and data, opensource WebKit, easy accessible QTKit. AFAIK these things _do not exist_ in windows.



> I look at SGI (they started to die when they started selling Windows based workstations), Be (could never get past the Applications Barrier to Entry on the PC hardware platform), NeXT (who lost many of their developers when NEXTSTEP started co-existing with Windows on PCs) and OS/2 Warp (whose compatibility with Windows apps kept developers from writing native OS/2 apps) and can't help but think this has to be the worst possible thing Apple could do to the platform.



SGI was a more specialized market thatn the Mac and Apple is still not selling or supporting windows-boxen. In contrast to Be and the BeOS, Apple is already well past the application barrier and has several dedicated mac-only developers, is backed by the big firms (MS, Adobe) and develops lots of (professional) stuff in house. NeXT attracted developers _in droves_ because of the developing environment, but was relatively new and never attained significant mainstream market- and mindshare. OS2 had other problems, like price, hardware requirements etc. Moreover it was co-developed by IBM and Microsoft initially and then MS abandoned it for NT.

It all depends on how it plays out of course, but Apple is doing this from a much stronger position than all the other examples you mention. So "the worst possible thing" it is certainly not.


----------



## fryke (Apr 6, 2006)

Ah, RacerX, don't go all Doomsday on us. At least not *all* the time. I'm with ElDiablo here: Hey, it's Windows. Nothing to see here, move along... I mean: If Adobe _wants_ to kill CS for the Mac, they _can_ do that whether Windows runs on Macs or not. Whether Adobe asks us to install Windows (349 USD?) or buy a PC with Windows (399 USD?) is more or less the same thing. They don't. They know they have a loyal customer-base on the Mac. If I've seen *any*thing from Adobe lately, it's that Mac support is good and thriving.

Booting Windows on your intel Mac can be

1.) an alternative to using Mac OS X if you're a Windows user. Then you'll reformat the whole drive and install Windows instead of OS X. Apple has won a hardware user, lost nothing, in fact, because the user was a Windows user to start with.

2.) a way of playing Windows games on your Mac. This will probably hurt the development of Mac games. So what, I say. If people _really_ want to play games, they'll install Windows or buy an Xbox or Playstation or whatever, anyway.

3.) Something like Virtual PC, but worse, because you have to reboot.

The fourth case, where a long-time Mac user installs Windows and finds out that he actually likes Windows more: Do you *REALLY* think that'll happen?!

Your concerns are more aimed at the virtual-Windows part, I guess, where Windows apps live on Mac OS X. But this, Boot Camp, is *NOT* about that.


----------



## Cat (Apr 6, 2006)

P.S.

A quote from Omni&#8217;s CEO Ken Case, found on the omni blog:



> In general, I think we&#8217;ll see Microsoft selling more copies of Windows to Mac users (like the [copy] I&#8217;m just about to buy), and Apple selling more Macintoshes to Windows users: I know it will be a lot easier for many people to buy Macs now that they&#8217;re not an either/or proposition, which naturally means a larger market for our software.



This will definitely help the transition to Intel and pull people off the fence, especially when it will be included by default with Leppy.


----------



## fryke (Apr 6, 2006)

Oh. Have to add that to my message above: http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/mac/ ... They now have virtual machines running on Mac OS X as a public beta. Product should cost about 50 bucks when final. So the other thing, i.e. running Windows at native speed but on top of OS X, is coming now, too.


----------



## powermac (Apr 6, 2006)

I am just a Psychologist, not a business person at all. I rest assured that Apple knows what they are doing. As some one mentioned, the Mac will be a swiss army knife computer, with the possibility of running Linux, OSX, and Windows, which increases its appeal to more consumers. That is great news for Apple. 
I am not initially convinced that PC people who love Windows, are going to purchase a Mac. Sure, the Hardware is great, we all know that. Those people are not going to purchase a Mac, to run Windows. That is a high cost to absorb at first. You have to purchase a Mac, then purchase Windows. Too costly for people who are used to purchasing a cheap PCs, and upgrading as they go along, with video/audio cards etc. Can't add video cards and the like to Imacs, or laptops, and probably not the Mac Mini. So in the end, what appeal running Windows on a Mac have for PC people? 
I think BootCamp is just for Mac users looking to run Windows. Highly doubtful it is going to attract PC users to Apple Hardware.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 6, 2006)

Cat said:
			
		

> SGI was a more specialized market thatn the Mac and Apple is still not selling or supporting windows-boxen.


By 1990 SGI saw that desktop systems were starting to eat away at the workstation market. This started SGI into thinking about the fact that workstations alone may be a bad idea for the future. And so started _MOM_ (Move Over Mac) at SGI where they pushed very hard to get into the desktop publishing market. Applications like Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat and Framemaker were all brought over to SGI IRIX based systems.

By the mid 90's SGI realized the value of IrisGL and other technologies that they had developed and started back into a more specialized market of 3D graphics and animation (this was about the time that they bought Alias|Wavefront as I recall). Even though they had backed off the push into the desktop publishing market, they had a strong hold on the Video/Film and 3D Graphics/Animation markets.

Then they made their first big mistake... making another attempt at the desktop market. Only this time they thought they could do it by making Windows based systems.

Do you know how many ads SGI ran in Mac publications pushing their NT based systems in 1998?

What it did was introduce doubt into the mind of both developers and users of their IRIX based systems. And even when they eventually dumped the Windows based systems, they followed it up with Linux/Itanium based systems (which, in my opinion, made matters worse).

Add to this the fact that SGI sold many of their patents to Microsoft, and soon they were going no where fast. I'll be surprised if they see 2007.



> In contrast to Be and the BeOS, Apple is already well past the application barrier and has several dedicated mac-only developers, is backed by the big firms (MS, Adobe) and develops lots of (professional) stuff in house.


Adobe has been known to pull software from the Mac at it's whim.

Take Premiere as an example. Not only did it pull Premiere from the Mac platform, the last version was actually crippled (to aid their _Windows Preferred_ campaign). And Adobe is already complaining about making Photoshop and the other Creative Suite apps Universal.

Microsoft has threaten to pull Office many times before.

And I would point out that even though they have promised to continue to make Office for the Mac, they made the same promise about IE and Outlook Express (yes, Microsoft promised to make a Mac OS X version of Outlook Express... and didn't).



> NeXT attracted developers _in droves_ because of the developing environment, but was relatively new and never attained significant mainstream market- and mindshare.


What a lot of people don't realize is that developers like Adobe started to distance themselves from NeXT when NeXT closed down hardware production.

More to the point, NeXT stopped making hardware months before they had a shipping version of NEXTSTEP for other platforms. Like SGI, this introduced doubt into both the development and user communities.



> OS2 had other problems, like price, hardware requirements etc. Moreover it was co-developed by IBM and Microsoft initially and then MS abandoned it for NT.


By 1995 IBM had made a massive campaign blitz pushing OS/2 Warp. This was happening on a number of fronts... First was a strong television campaign to get people thinking about OS/2 Warp. Second was the creation of CDE for Unix based systems which was designed to make people's work environments and personal computing environments feel the same.

Before the release of Windows 95, OS/2 Warp had a larger market share than Apple has right now.

What killed OS/2 Warp was apathy of the users. They weren't demanding apps from developers, so developers had no reason to develop OS/2 Warp apps.

It is this example, by the way, that led the Linux community to emulate the Mac community in attempting to be vocal about their platform. The _squeaky_ users keep their platform.

As so comes the danger of what we have here. So many of you who use both Macs and Windows are now showing contentment over this new ability. You are happy that now you can run your Windows apps and Mac apps on the same hardware.

... and that is the problem.

See, now those Windows apps are even less likely to be ported (that would be the first step). Later, when developers notice that Mac users seem _okay_ with running Windows on their Macs, will come developers no longer upgrading Mac versions of their software.

Think this isn't possible? Lets see how popular it becomes to run Photoshop in Windows on Macs rather than running Photoshop in Rosetta on Macs. If Adobe gets even a hint that Mac users are willing to boot into Windows on their systems for Photoshop and the like, then we've seen the end of those apps on our platform.






			
				fryke said:
			
		

> Ah, RacerX, don't go all Doomsday on us. At least not *all* the time.


I'm just making sure that all sides of this are presented... how else can I say _"I told you so"_ about this in the future if I don't _tell you_ about it now? 

Besides, like I said, I hope I'm wrong.



> 2.) a way of playing Windows games on your Mac. This will probably hurt the development of Mac games. So what, I say. If people _really_ want to play games, they'll install Windows or buy an Xbox or Playstation or whatever, anyway.


Here is the problem... if being able to play Windows _games_ on Macs is going to hurt Mac _game_ development... why wouldn't being able to run Windows _apps_ on Macs hurt Mac _app_ development?

See, the exact same factors that will hurt Mac game development can hurt _all_ development on the Mac.


----------



## powermac (Apr 6, 2006)

I am sure this latest development is going to have some consequences for Mac development, that is commonsensible. I am sure Apple knows this. It is one thing if Hackers got Windows to work on Intel Macs, totally another when Apple has no shown signs of supporting it. Of course, if developers get the idea that Mac users are booting windows, and comfortable with it, why developed a Mac version? It is not cost efficient to do so. All companies are in business to make $$$$$.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Apr 6, 2006)

Adobe has a lot invested in the code base of Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign on Macs. The best reason I can give that Adobe won't cease development of CS3 for the Mac and suggest that Mac users run the Windows version is this: a huge portion of the Mac base is still on PPC and can't run the Windows version. Same goes for Microsoft. I believe the next version of Office will probably be out in early 2007, right around the time of Office Vista (or whatever they are calling it). Now, this will probably be different for the product cycle after CS3/Office2007, but for now, the PPC installed base is the reason this won't happen.

You are probably right about the games market though. I think a few die hard developers like Aspyr will continue to produce Mac games (they've got porting down to a science), especially since the move to Intel will ultimately mean the port can be done quicker. But the incentive for game developers to create a Mac only version just got smaller.

I wouldn't have believed it before today, but now that Boot Camp is out, I believe it is step 1 in a 3 step process.

1. Step 1 - Release boot camp, make it pretty easy for people to dual boot Windows on a Intel Mac. Double Mac sales. Widen the base of users.

2. Step 2 - Release Leopard which will include virtualization, making it possible to load Windows while OS X is still running without a reboot.

3. Step 3- Resurrect the Yellow Box for Windows. This further strengthens the already strong Cocoa developer community. This gives Apple the trump card on both Adobe and Microsoft. If Adobe and Microsoft decide not to release CS3/Office natively for the Mac, Apple counters with a graphics productivity package that is more powerful than CS3, built in Cocoa, and can run on both Mac and Windows. Microsoft kills Mac Office? Apple doubles the size of the development team working on iWork, adds the missing applications, and releases a version that can run on both Mac and Windows.

Step 1 is a huge risk all by itself. I don't believe Apple would have made this step if the 2nd and 3rd steps weren't planned. 

What I like most about this strategy is that it is risky, but so long as you have contingencies, the bigger the risk, the bigger the prize.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Apr 6, 2006)

Adobe has been known to pull software from the Mac at it's whim.

Take Premiere as an example. Not only did it pull Premiere from the Mac platform, the last version was actually crippled (to aid their Windows Preferred campaign). And Adobe is already complaining about making Photoshop and the other Creative Suite apps Universal.​
Very good point. But another good point is that Adobe is coming back to the Mac with their video offerings. Why the reversal? Because the Mac video market is huge. If you are doing video, you use a Mac. Adobe is obviously not selling the Video Production Studio in numbers that they are happy with to just Windows users. 

Adobe isn't stupid. Dumping Photoshop and Illustrator on the Mac will create a vacuum that Apple would be all too happy too fill. If you ask me, I welcome it. While I use Photoshop and Illustrator every day, as applications they have become huge, bloated, inefficient and unresponsive to customer requests. If Apple comes along and offers a Photoshop like program for $299, do you think I'm going to care one bit if Adobe drops Photoshop support? Nope. Adobe doesn't want to get Final Cut Pro'd again. And dumping CreativeSuite for the Mac will ensure that it happens. Look at After Effects. It once held 100% of the mid to low end compositing market. Enter Apple Motion, and After Effects sales on the Mac plummet. Apple released a better product (for most tasks) at half the price. Apple can afford to do this, since they have so many revenue streams (iPod, Software, Hardware, Peripherals) to bank on. Adobe just has software.

Seriously, I think it's all moot. The next logical move is for Apple to buy Adobe. It's the only way Steve can beat Bill. And I really believe it's all still about Steve beating Bill.


----------



## mw84 (Apr 6, 2006)

I've just been thinking about this a bit more, if OS X falls on it's face i.e. major developers, Adobe and such, WERE to stop producing Mac compatible versions of their software, wouldn't that basically be an end to OS X?, 

I mean who's going to buy an 'expensive' Mac running an OS (OS X) that only supports apps that are so limited? And who's going to buy an 'expensive' Mac just to install Windows on it, when they can go down to the local computer shop and buy a PC for a quarter of the price, pre-installed with Windows? Maybe a few rich kids but not enough to keep Apple afloat.

Apple really couldn't afford to have this happen, in my opinion, if it did the only thing that I see them being able to do is dramatically lower the prices on their hardware and turn solely into a hardware developer and possibly on the side developing their own apps such as those included in iLife for Windows and I really don't see this happening. 

I mean, if that's their intention why bother to continue developing Leopard? I think Apple has other ideas.


----------



## powermac (Apr 6, 2006)

Good point. 
I don't believe BootCamp is going to attract new users to the Mac. We have to look at this from a PC users perspective. Why would I buy a Mac, if I love Windows? To play with OSX for a few weeks, and realize I still love Windows? Too costly to attract new users to buy Mac hardware, not even practical to do so. 

Usually switchers are those users that are looking for a new computer, and take the plunge to purchase a Mac. They usually keep their outdated PC around for a few months for safety. 
Assuming that a PC user, who favors Windows, is going to purchase a dual-boot Mac, and discover OSX, and stop using Windows, is a arrogant point of view of us Mac users. OSX is great, we all know that. It does not appeal to everyone, especially to die hard Window users. 

In short, I feel BootCamp is not going to increase Apple's Hardware sales significantly enough to make a difference. Why would it ?
My other concern is the message it sends, does Apple have doubts about the future of their OS?


----------



## Cat (Apr 6, 2006)

> See, now those Windows apps are even less likely to be ported (that would be the first step). Later, when developers notice that Mac users seem okay with running Windows on their Macs, will come developers no longer upgrading Mac versions of their software.


Most of Macintosh software (~80-90% ballpark) is not software ported from windows, but developed specifically for the Mac. Why would that cease? You have to qualify your statement, which, by the way, does note follow from what you said above, where you essentially agreed with me that Apple is in a very different situation from all those other companies. The developers you are talking about are only those that already develop their applications both for windows and OS X. All the windows specific people are  not going to care, all mac developers will see the installed user base and marketshare of Apple grow and they will be happy about it (cf. the Omni comment.) Now those that develop for both the platforms will have to ask themselves how they can maximize sales and profits versus investment in codebase and expertise. My humble opinion is that it is profitable for both Adobe and microsoft to keep distributing their products for OS X. As long as Mac marketshare does not decline below say 1% all mac-only companies are going to keep developing for OS X. I fail to see why BootCamp would actually _reduce_ marketshare.



> Lets see how popular it becomes to run Photoshop in Windows on Macs rather than running Photoshop in Rosetta on Macs.


 Has The Gimp killed Photshop sales on any platform? I don't see "photoshop-on-the-mac-rebooted-in-windows" killing Rosetta Photshop either. People who rely on PPC-native speed programs will hold out at least until the "Pro Mac" (dual-dual/quad) intel towers come out. I'm sure Rosetta Photoshop  will run well enough on them.


----------



## fryke (Apr 6, 2006)

Yeah. It's your own point that Photoshop on the Mac is better than Photoshop on Windows. I mean: Even if Photoshop currently (!!!) performs better on WinXP on an intel Mac than through Rosetta, I'd *still* use it through Rosetta - and most graphics artists *I* know, would, too. For them (and me), not having an intel-native Adobe CS is a reason not to buy an intel Mac currently, but certainly not a reason to go all Windowsy... Also: It's not as easy or cheap as you make it sound... Imagine a graphics artist now buying a MacBook Pro (2499?), a Windows license (349?) plus Adobe CS 2 Premium for Windows crossgrade (dunno the US price... 1000+? can't find a crossgrade, upgrade is 599, full version 1199, crossgrades don't exist on the Adobe store...) - only to then buy the update pack for Adobe CS 3 for, maybe, _both_ platforms? I dunno... I think people will use "the other platform" differently. They'll have _one_ preferred platform. For me, that'd be Mac OS X. For a PC user, it might be Windows XP. Now: Sure, I'll want to play the occasional 3D game not yet out for the Mac. I'll boot into Windows for that. Same the other way 'round: A PC user might boot into Mac OS X to do some stuff in iLife. But *I* wouldn't start to buy Windows software and a PC user - until switching completely - probably won't buy Mac software. You won't become a _true_ citizen in both worlds. In one world, you'll be a freeloader, I guess... *ONE* OS will be your base. Where your digital life is. Your E-Mail, calendar, addresses etc. Your everyday files. And also your main workhorse apps. And I truly believe that for Mac users, this will be OS X. And I _also_ truly believe that OS X has advantages over Windows so the general movement will be towards the Mac and away from Windows for users of intel Macs. 'nuff said.


----------



## Captain Code (Apr 6, 2006)

RacerX said:
			
		

> I look at SGI (they started to die when they started selling Windows based workstations), Be (could never get past the _Applications Barrier to Entry_ on the PC hardware platform), NeXT (who lost many of their developers when NEXTSTEP started co-existing with Windows on PCs) and OS/2 Warp (whose compatibility with Windows apps kept developers from writing native OS/2 apps) and can't help but think this has to be the worst possible thing Apple could do to the platform.



All those platforms with the exception of probably SGI(since I don't know much about them) didn't have any existing programs like Photoshop, MS Word etc did they?  We do, so it's not like those companies have to do any more work than they already are.

To create a linux verision of Photoshop is a lot more work than maintaining the Mac version.  Also, Macs are well entrenched in the publishing and multimedia firms.

I agree it could stop game makers from wanting to port their games to the Mac but for most other things there are going to be a lot of people still writing Mac specific programs.


----------



## bbloke (Apr 6, 2006)

Inside Mac Games has some comments from developers:



			
				Peter Tamte of MacSoft said:
			
		

> The market of Mac game players is going to explode if consumers can play the entire library of Windows games plus the entire library of Mac games on their Macs. Most of these users are going to want to spend as much of their time in MacOS, rather than Windows. Destineer/MacSoft's plans, first and foremost, are to release Mac versions of Destineer's internally developed games simultaneously with other platforms and also to continue releasing conversions of Windows games on an opportunistic basis where we believe we can serve users who prefer not to run Windows on their Macs.





			
				Glenda Adams of Aspyr Media said:
			
		

> It's an interesting move on Apple's part. I hope that Mac users will continue to support Mac specific software in the future, and not turn their shiny new Intel Macs into dumbed down Windows machines just to play games. Of course Aspyr also publishes some PC only games like Dreamfall and Spellforce 2, so if the mac game market shrinks, something like Boot Camp may be the only way to play those on the Mac. We'd much rather have a healthy, growing Mac game market that made it viable for us to make Mac specific versions of those kinds of games though.





			
				Ian Lynch Smith of Freeverse Software said:
			
		

> Great news for Mac Users! As usual, game makers are on the bleeding edge of the latest technology, emphasis this time on the bleeding





			
				Andrew Welch of Ambrosia Software said:
			
		

> I'd say the same thing that I said before re: this issue, which is that Apple is clearly doing this because they believe it will help sell more computers Whenever Apple sells more computers, it is good for us -- people will get sick of dual-booting, and would prefer to run native games, just like Linux users prefer native games.





			
				Brad Oliver of Aspyr Media said:
			
		

> 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. From a personal standpoint, it probably means the end of my current job, but I'm going to ride it out to the end and see where that takes me. I love doing Mac game ports, so in a way I wish I were strictly a Mac user now and didn't have a job that is in total collision with this new development.


 Overall, I'm a bit wary of the news.  In some ways, it sounded great.  It could entice people to buy one computer, a Mac, and be able to run Windows or OS X or both.  It could be a move that encourages enough people to take the chance, or makes it easier for developers.  But... I do also worry that the Windows version of any program becomes the lowest common denominator, and there might be less motivation to create OS X versions, which would lead to the decline of the operating system.  I'm *hoping* that won't be the way it pans out!


----------



## Cat (Apr 6, 2006)

THe companies that are going to suffer are those like Aspyr that have their main revenue from porting games from windows to mac. Of course they are going to suffer: why wait six months to a year for Civ 4 when you can buy it right now? Why spend ~$50.- on Civ 4 in six months if you can pick up the windows version in the discount bin for $5.-? Aspyr and the like did a great job by functioning as "arbitrageur", i.e. bringing products to a market where they were previously unavailable and making profit from that. Now there is going to be more market equality. Nevertheless the programmers from companies like Aspyr are probably highly trained in development for both platforms, windows and mac, and hence are a valuable asset to any company working on both. If indeed Aspyr is going bust in the next years because of this, then that is too bad for them, but at the same time there are going to be a lot more happy mac gamers around.

It will be interesting to see what companies like Blizzard will do, who have always released their games in hybrid fashion: both windows and mac version at the same time on the same media.

I guess someone like Blizzard will abandon the mac version only if we will get classic-like virtualisation at 90% native speeds and with quasi full hardware access.


----------



## bigdoug (Apr 6, 2006)

so does this mean all games, as long as our gphx cards are good enough will be available for mac?

doug


----------



## Myke (Apr 6, 2006)

What do we care about most here? Is it the OS or the applications? If popular software such as Photoshop or Word can be made to run seemlessly on the Mac - even if it takes Windows running in the background - where is the problem? 

You may ask - why bother running the MacOS at all then ...but I think we all know the answer to that.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Apr 6, 2006)

bigdoug said:
			
		

> so does this mean all games, as long as our gphx cards are good enough will be available for mac?
> 
> doug


No, it just means that you'll be able to run Windows natively, and any games that you have for Windows will run _under Windows_ on your Mac.

When someone says "available for Mac" that usually means that there's a version that will run under the Mac OS X operating system.  While game developers may or may not develop a Mac OS X-specific version, it does mean that you can play Windows games under Windows on your Intel-based Macintosh.


----------



## mindbend (Apr 6, 2006)

1. Adobe dumped Preimere because Final Cut kicked Premiere's ass and Premiere for Mac was no longer profitable. It's that simple. Photoshop and the CS suite are profitable for Adobe, they are not going to dump them.

2. Did someone actually suggest that the ability to run Windows on Macs (via Boot Camp) won't help Mac sales? Are you crazy?  Apple just sold two today (from my company) because of this announcement. This is a huge development that will yield a noticeable increase in Mac hardware sales. There are boatloads of folks like me who want/need this kind of flexibility. I can point you you to plenty of forums where Windows folks are basically revealing that this announcement "sealed the deal" for them in terms of buying a Mac.


----------



## chadwick (Apr 6, 2006)

My guess is this won't make much, if any, negative impact to the Mac games market. Game PCs have been so cheap for so long that people just bought a $500 PC to play their game with if they really wanted to... So my guess is the end result will be a wash.

Increasing market share of the Mac hardware can't be nothing but good!


----------



## chadwick (Apr 6, 2006)

BTW, I finished my XP Install using bootcamp last night. It's fantastic, they did a great job. You really get a feel for how fast the hardware is once you run a "familiar" OS that your other systems are running.

I am optimisitcally looking forward to the real virtualization tools!


----------



## linux_cat (Apr 6, 2006)

what about games??, does bootcamp runs games smoothly....i got a new macbook pro and am wondering on wether to install windows...just for the wider selection of games, but do the drivers make full use of my graphics card??


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Apr 6, 2006)

Boot Camp doesn't _run_ anything.  Boot Camp allows you to install Windows XP on your Intel-based Macintosh, just as you would install Windows XP on any other exising PC -- so you're running Windows XP natively -- no emulation, no virtualization, just Windows XP running natively on your Intel-based Macintosh.

Yes, Boot Camp does make a "driver CD" which contains full drivers for most all of the hardware (including the video card) on the Intel-based Macintosh computers.

Games in Windows XP should run just like they would on any other comparable PC hardware.  XLR8 Your Mac has some good benchmarks in WoW if you're interested:

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Apr 6, 2006)

all the benchmarks would point to xp being faster at... well everything...

can someone make me feel a bit better?


----------



## nixgeek (Apr 6, 2006)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> all the benchmarks would point to xp being faster at... well everything...
> 
> can someone make me feel a bit better?



Consider that XP doesn't have all the OpenGL Quartz Extreme and Core Image effects running which might make XP seem as though it's faster.  I'm sure that once Vista is on it with all of it's eye candy it will be more evenly balanced.

Or at least that's my opinion...


----------



## ra3ndy (Apr 6, 2006)

Here's who this situation is ideal for: My roommate, Neko.

She's an animation student at Columbia College in Chicago, and is torn between what computer to get.  She technically needs a Mac for iMovie, FCP, etc.  But she also needs the various things that Windows is better at, like Stop Motion Animation software (sadly, it's true).  Enter Boot Camp.  Perfect solution.

For the Pros concerned, Apple has obviously placed a lot of faith in their industry standard apps.  Final Cut Pro, and (likely to be a standard soon) iMovie and Garageband.  People will run Photoshop in Rosetta for the interoperability with their other Mac Software.  Moving data between environments would be a HUGE detrement to productivity.  And it isn't likely that even a virtualized Windows would have drag-and-drop function with OS X.

And then there's what 90% of the world uses their computers for:  Internet, Email, Music, Homework.  Everyone and their moms use iTunes, which is better in OS X due to its tight integration with the OS.  The internet's moot.  Doesn't matter what you have as long as you can run Firefox.  Email, If you NEEEEED Outlook, then yeah, you're screwed.  But most people use webmail anyway.  A few business stragglers, really, will be left behind.

Windows on a mac is just a safety blanket for cautious switchers.  Loads of people are curious, but don't want to throw themselves completely off.  Now Apple can say "Come on, just try it.  You can quit anytime you want... Promise!  You know you want to.  All the kids are.  You wanna be COOOOOL, don'tcha?" or something like that.


----------



## tomdkat (Apr 6, 2006)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> However, for someone like me that does deal with more than one OS, this is a great convenience.  If I have to test out software, relegating myself to one or two other computers aside from my Mac is not conducive at times.  Being able to have those operating systems available to you for whatever reason is a good thing, especially if there is no Mac version of the applicaton at the moment and you need to get things done.  I only have to deal with one computer which for the most part will be used in OS X, but will give me the ability to be more efficient in helping my users.


The thing is, doesn't VirtualPC or similar apps solve this problem much better?  I have a screenshot somewhere on my machine of Windows 98 (or maybe NT) running alongside Lotus Notes for Windows side-by-side on my Linux box.   I would think being able to run Windows AND Linux at the same time would be the best solution since either (or both) would be a few clicks away, instead of a reboot or two away.  Given the processing speeds of the newer Macs, I think emulation is more practical.

On a related note, I've got a question about EFI vs BIOS.  Is EFI new to Intel-based Macs or did that exist with the PPC-based Macs as well?

Peace...


----------



## tomdkat (Apr 6, 2006)

serpicolugnut said:
			
		

> Well, it means you can have an easier time convincing your boss that buying a Mac for work isn't a bad investment.


Does that also introduce the possibility of OS X being prohibited from being run on the machine, by the same boss?  I would think if one were to convince their boss buying a Mac is a good investment, it would be to get OS X available for the user of that machine since they would already have access to a Windows machine.

Peace...


----------



## tomdkat (Apr 6, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> Ah, RacerX, don't go all Doomsday on us.


He should change his avatar to the grim reaper or something.  



> 1.) an alternative to using Mac OS X if you're a Windows user. Then you'll reformat the whole drive and install Windows instead of OS X. Apple has won a hardware user, lost nothing, in fact, because the user was a Windows user to start with.


I think this is a great point since it identifies something I think needs to be kept in consideration.  With this latest move Mac != MacOS.  This move further distinguishes Mac hardware from the Mac OS (people basically ignored Linux on Macs) meaning growth in Mac marketshare won't necessarily mean growth in OS X marketshare.  OS X is what makes Macs "do more than PCs", not the hardware itself.   As more and more people choose to run Windows on their Macs, I can see that resulting in less and less justifiable reason to invest in OS X.  RacerX makes an incredible point about Adobe CS3 (or whatever Adobe app he mentioned) and Linux.

I know many Windows users who have Linux installed in a dual-boot configuration who rarely or never boot it.  Yeah, they checked it out but reverted back to their "native environment".    I do agree existing OS X users won't abandon OS X, at least not until they feel they must.  I can see Windows folks wanting to try OS X playing with it some, but not necessarily seriously since XP will be "readily" available to them.

I don't think this move is necessarily a "good" move on Apple's part, but I can understand them doing it.  I'm not a Mac user so I lessen the value of my opinion here.  

Peace...


----------



## tomdkat (Apr 6, 2006)

Cat said:
			
		

> Has The Gimp killed Photshop sales on any platform?


Currently, there is controversy over the Gimp UI behaving more like PhotoShop in all aspects.  (Hence Gimpshop).  Additionally, Gimp doesn't support the print-work related functions PhotoShop does nor does it do a couple of other things PhotoShop does that PhotoShop users who tried Gimp say are the main factors keeping them from switching from Gimp.  Of course, this isn't the case for all PhotoShop users who tried Gimp but the Gimp mailing lists will show you there definitely IS interest by many PhotoShop users to switch to avoid PhotoShop's cost.

I think Gimp impacting PhotoShop marketshare is a different animal in the context of this discussion.

BTW:  I'm slowly making my way through this long thread, so I apologize for comments I'm making that might be redundant.  

Peace...


----------



## RacerX (Apr 6, 2006)

Cat said:
			
		

> Most of Macintosh software (~80-90% ballpark) is not software ported from windows, but developed specifically for the Mac. Why would that cease?


I guess the question needs to be asked... were you a Mac user during the _Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X_ transition?

If so, when did you start using Mac OS X daily? And what was it that enabled you to start using Mac OS X?

I use a lot of Mac only software... in fact I use a lot of Mac OS X only software which is why I can still use Rhapsody as a primary platform for doing work today.

What stopped Rhapsody? Why did Apple bend over backwards to add Carbon to Mac OS X?

Two words... *Adobe* and *Microsoft*.

Most of the people I know didn't even give Mac OS X a thought until the summer of 2002. Why do you think that was? Do you think it was the release of 10.2? No! It was the release of the last hold out app for Mac OS X from Adobe, Photoshop.

Get this, pretty much all the other major apps (all Adobe's apps save Photoshop, and even Microsoft Office) had been released for Mac OS X by this point, and yet people held off.



> You have to qualify your statement, which, by the way, does note follow from what you said above, where you essentially agreed with me that Apple is in a very different situation from all those other companies. The developers you are talking about are only those that already develop their applications both for windows and OS X. All the windows specific people are  not going to care, all mac developers will see the installed user base and marketshare of Apple grow and they will be happy about it (cf. the Omni comment.)


Not really sure what you are arguing here. I'm saying that at best this is a risky move and at worse a fatal mistake on Apple's part.

If you wish to turn a blind eye to it, that is fine... but you really can't argue the possibility that what I'm saying isn't there. And no amount of spin can change that.




> Now those that develop for both the platforms will have to ask themselves how they can maximize sales and profits versus investment in codebase and expertise.


And there you have the primary (and really only needed) argument for what I'm saying.

If Adobe, Microsoft or anyone else can save more money by dropping their Mac versions and still keep any significant number of those Mac users by doing this... they will.

It's business.



> My humble opinion is that it is profitable for both Adobe and microsoft to keep distributing their products for OS X. As long as Mac marketshare does not decline below say 1% all mac-only companies are going to keep developing for OS X. I fail to see why BootCamp would actually _reduce_ marketshare


And there is the problem... we don't have to lose *any* market share for these developers to think twice about the type of move I'm suggesting to happen. We could even gain, and they still may consider dropping the Mac specific versions of their software.

That is the scary part of all this.

If it earns them the same (if not more) money to drop Mac development by not losing _all_ their Mac users, they will do this.


Ask yourself this question... what percentage of Mac users of a product are needed to pay for the development of that product? The remainder of those users are profit for the company.

If Adobe or Microsoft thinks that they would still get equal amount to the remaining users buying the Windows version of their software to run in Windows on a Mac... they will drop the Mac version in a heart beat.

It's business.



> Has The Gimp killed Photshop sales on any platform?


No one I know buys the Unix version of Photoshop any more (of course it is stuck at version 3.0.1). And Gimp still doesn't match Photoshop for features or usability.

More to the point, has Gimp hurt Photoshop sales on the Mac platform? No! Why? There is *no* native version of Gimp for Mac OS X.



> I don't see "photoshop-on-the-mac-rebooted-in-windows" killing Rosetta Photshop either. People who rely on PPC-native speed programs will hold out at least until the "Pro Mac" (dual-dual/quad) intel towers come out. I'm sure Rosetta Photoshop  will run well enough on them


Professional Mac users don't buy top of the line Macs to run their primary apps _well enough_. These same people could have run almost all their apps but Photoshop natively in Mac OS X and run Photoshop _well enough_ in _Classic_ and still they stayed with Mac OS 9.

Apple is going to have a hard time selling high end Intel systems until after their is a native version of all the major apps that those systems are being bought for.

That is just the facts.

And users who are willing to pay that much for a high end Intel system may also be willing to pay for a crossgrade to the Windows version of Photoshop to actually run Photoshop in Windows at the speeds they bought the hardware for to begin with.




			
				fryke  said:
			
		

> Yeah. It's your own point that Photoshop on the Mac is better than Photoshop on Windows. I mean: Even if Photoshop currently (!!!) performs better on WinXP on an intel Mac than through Rosetta, I'd *still* use it through Rosetta - and most graphics artists *I* know, would, too.


But the question that Adobe is going to be asking is if enough of those people would be willing to run Photoshop in Windows to afford them to drop Mac development.

Most graphic artist want to use Photoshop... would they be willing to use it in Windows on their Macs if there was no Mac version? Would enough be willing to do this that Adobe would either break even or profit from this?

Neither Adobe nor Microsoft are in the business of making great software... they are in the business of making money. And if they see a way to make money without the Mac development costs, they'll do it.



> And I _also_ truly believe that OS X has advantages over Windows so the general movement will be towards the Mac and away from Windows for users of intel Macs.


I don't have blind faith like that. The best software doesn't always win... and we both know this.



> 'nuff said.


C'mon... it's me you are talking to... I have plenty more to say on the subject.

Have I ever been short for words? 




			
				Captain Code said:
			
		

> All those platforms with the exception of probably SGI(since I don't know much about them) didn't have any existing programs like Photoshop, MS Word etc did they?  We do, so it's not like those companies have to do any more work than they already are.


SGI did.

More importantly, NEXTSTEP had Adobe Illustrator which (with PageMaker) was one of the biggest apps in desktop publishing in the late 80's early 90's. It also had WordPerfect and FrameMaker early on.

One has to remember that Photoshop didn't take off until much later when things like 24 bit displays were more common place. In the late 80's early 90's most desktop publishing designers were concerned with screen size rather than color. People as late as 1993 were willing to pay $1,200US for a 21" grayscale display for their systems. NeXT didn't even offer color until the release of NEXTSTEP 2.0.

But yes, Illustrator left NEXTSTEP even though NeXT was a big client of Adobe.



> To create a linux verision of Photoshop is a lot more work than maintaining the Mac version.  Also, Macs are well entrenched in the publishing and multimedia firms.


A little history of Photoshop...

Photoshop was a Mac only application when first released. How Mac only? It was written in Pascal.

At version 2.5, Adobe rewrote all the code in C to make it portable to other platforms (like Windows and SGI).

So, how hard would it be to make a Linux version of Photoshop? Not very. They already have most of the Photoshop interface for X Windows finished and would only need to port the underlying structure to Linux (or any other Unix for that matter).

And that is actually something that we should worry about too. What if Adobe drops Mac development for X Windows? Mac OS X has X11... so Mac users could still use their products.



			
				Myke said:
			
		

> What do we care about most here? Is it the OS or the applications? If popular software such as Photoshop or Word can be made to run seemlessly on the Mac - even if it takes Windows running in the background - where is the problem?


The main problem as I see it is... well, one of _temperature_.

None of this is like throwing a live frog into boiling water. It *is* like putting the frog in luke warm water and bringing it up to a boil.

I am just hoping that enough of you _frogs_ start jumping around before our little platform is slowly boiled alive. 



			
				tomdkat said:
			
		

> He should change his avatar to the grim reaper or something.


I actually look good in black.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Apr 6, 2006)

Goth!

i have heard theories that this is Jobs first move at bowing the mac platform out gracefully from the computing market and concentrating on digital music.

discuss.


----------



## chadwick (Apr 6, 2006)

Well.... I dunno about OS X versus XP, but Java 5 on OS X is blowing chunks compared to the one on XP.

jboss 4.0.3SP1 bootup on the iMac running XP - 16 seconds
jboss 4.0.3SP1 bootup on the iMac running OS X 10.4.6 - 26 seconds 

EDIT: on OS X with JDK 1.4.2 startup time is 18 seconds... still slower than XP but not noticably so.


----------



## chadwick (Apr 6, 2006)

Oh, also. 3DMark05 on the iMac running XP gives you score of 2776.

CPU score was fantastic, video score was so-so.


----------



## ra3ndy (Apr 7, 2006)

Since Steve came back and started calling shots, he hasn't really made any drastically stupid decisions (ok ok Flower Power iMac, maybe the Cube....).  His greatest strength has always been seeing opportunity where others didn't.  I look forward to what Apple has to follow this up with, personally.

That, or I look forward to the day Steve has to spin his way out of the bad press when OS X dies.  It'd be fantastic.  Like Bill O'Reilly + 5.


----------



## sinclair_tm (Apr 7, 2006)

i'm sorry, but many of you seem to have over looked one rather important thing.  from the boot camp web page:


> Boot Camp lets you install Windows XP without moving your Mac data, though you will need to bring your own copy to the table, _*as Apple Computer does not sell or support Microsoft Windows*_. Boot Camp will burn a CD of all the required drivers for Windows so you don't have to scrounge around the Internet looking for them.


so if it messes up, apple doesn't care.  are they going to go out of their way to make sure that it is stable and useable?  not really.  if i have problems getting it to work, and i call up apple, what are they going to say, "we don't support that, good luck".  i have been waiting for this news just as much as the next person, now there is really a chance that i can play hl2 on my mac, and not have 2 towers taking up my desk space.  i don't really see this as hurting apple.  its more of a crutch for iffy switchers, and a "this is cool, gee wiz" thing for us mac meddlers (like us that still run rhapsody or os x on an old world mac).  i don't see it being main stream.  can you even see your mac partition when booted in win xp, and visa-versa?  if not, then it really becomes not so useful.  like many, i do live in fear of that day when the last macintosh ever is sold, and the platform is no more, but i don't think boot camp will do it.  but like all things in this field, only time will tell.


----------



## simbalala (Apr 7, 2006)

People have been predicting the demise of the Mac for at least 20 years. It's stronger now than ever and it leaves  windoes in the dust. It's also UNIX now, what are you people worried about?


----------



## Cat (Apr 7, 2006)

RacerX said:
			
		

> I guess the question needs to be asked... were you a Mac user during the _Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X_ transition?
> 
> If so, when did you start using Mac OS X daily? And what was it that enabled you to start using Mac OS X?


Yes, I was. I switched to OS X with Jaguar IIRC. I was using Quark Express, so without Classic this would not have been possible. Using OS X and putting up with classic gave several advantages over sticking with OS 9. I consider the situation with windows the same. Using OS X, but being able to tap into windows when required is better thatn sticking with windows altogether.



			
				RacerX said:
			
		

> Not really sure what you are arguing here. I'm saying that at best this is a risky move and at worse a fatal mistake on Apple's part.
> 
> If you wish to turn a blind eye to it, that is fine... but you really can't argue the possibility that what I'm saying isn't there. And no amount of spin can change that.


What are you arguiing here? What is the risk? That developers will stop writing Mac apps and rely on windows virtualisation? I asked you to give a rationale for that, but I haven't seen one. Are you arguing that developers are intrinsically irrational and "pull apps for no reason"? Well, then this transition to Intel and BootCamp will have not noticeable effect as the devs seem not to be rational agents. 



			
				RacerX said:
			
		

> If Adobe, Microsoft or anyone else can save more money by dropping their Mac versions and still keep any significant number of those Mac users by doing this... they will.
> 
> It's business.
> 
> And there is the problem... we don't have to lose *any* market share for these developers to think twice about the type of move I'm suggesting to happen. We could even gain, and they still may consider dropping the Mac specific versions of their software.


So Apple's marketshare increases, there are more (albeit part-time) mac users than ever. Apple's stock goes up 10%, people are stunned and amazed, the international press is gushing, Windows delays Vista to spring 2007 _and you think developers will abandond the Mac_ ... IMHO, non sequitur ...



			
				RacerX said:
			
		

> Ask yourself this question... what percentage of Mac users of a product are needed to pay for the development of that product? The remainder of those users are profit for the company.
> 
> If Adobe or Microsoft thinks that they would still get equal amount to the remaining users buying the Windows version of their software to run in Windows on a Mac... they will drop the Mac version in a heart beat.


  That's where I don't follow you anymore. Apple has ~5% marketshare and all the companies developing software for the Mac are quite happy to do so. I guess they are profitable right now, otherwise they would have pulled out. Now, from this situation the only reason I can see for them to rationally consider abandoning the OS X platform, is if the actual number of OS X users and prospective buyers declines. Why would that happen? Nevermind if new, additional switchers will be only part time users, all the people using OS X now will keep using OS X. The adoption and upgrade rate on OS X is staggering, Mac users always get the latest and greatest and are willing t spend money for it. We care about our platform. BootCamp is not going to cause previous Mac users to switch away from OS X.



			
				RacerX said:
			
		

> More to the point, has Gimp hurt Photoshop sales on the Mac platform? No! Why? There is *no* native version of Gimp for Mac OS X.


Exactly, since there is no native windows photoshop version for the Mac, people will rather use Rosetta than reboot to windows to use the native windows version ...



			
				RacerX said:
			
		

> Professional Mac users don't buy top of the line Macs to run their primary apps _well enough_. These same people could have run almost all their apps but Photoshop natively in Mac OS X and run Photoshop _well enough_ in _Classic_ and still they stayed with Mac OS 9.


 But Classic gave them the option to switch, just like it did for me. When OS X began offering increasing addvantages over staying in OS 9, I switched. Classic made this possible. Rosetta likewise will make it possible for them to move over to Intel Macs. they will have to put up with some slowdown temporarily, BUT I *guess*/*predict* that a Quad - Dual Core Duo is going to be so much faster than a Quad - Dual Core G5 that the effective speed hit is going to be quasi nihil.



			
				RacerX said:
			
		

> Apple is going to have a hard time selling high end Intel systems until after their is a native version of all the major apps that those systems are being bought for.
> 
> That is just the facts.
> 
> And users who are willing to pay that much for a high end Intel system may also be willing to pay for a crossgrade to the Windows version of Photoshop to actually run Photoshop in Windows at the speeds they bought the hardware for to begin with.


 You are presuming that those people 1) will buy/already own Windows licences 2) will buy/already own Photoshop for Windows Adobe has stated, like Microsoft, that they will be supoprting OS X on intel, they will ship native versions, in fact, the next version is going to be native. they will tackle this like the OS 9 - OS X transition allowing for 18-24 months, i.e. a full release cycle. From the announcement of Intel macs, were Adobe's ceo pledged his support, in June 2005 already almost 12 months have elapsed. Adobe has moved on, Mac Pro systems are going to be released in the second half of this year at the latest, Adobe's products will follow. Professionals will have to put up with at most a few months of Rosetta, if they choose to be early adopters. Nothing is forcing them. Quad G5 machines will be viable throughout 2007. If I were a Pro, I'd probably consider switching/upgrading after MWSF 2007. Why? Pro Mac towers will be available, Leopard will have been released, Adobe will probably have released/announced Photoshop.




			
				RacerX said:
			
		

> Most graphic artist want to use Photoshop... would they be willing to use it in Windows on their Macs if there was no Mac version? Would enough be willing to do this that Adobe would either break even or profit from this?


 You seem to forget that there is a Mac version already, the one running under Rosetta. If you have evidence that this is actually compeltely unusabel, please say so or post evidence.



			
				RacerX said:
			
		

> I don't have blind faith like that. The best software doesn't always win... and we both know this.


I completely agree.. I do not have _blind_ faith either. That's why I gave several reasons, backed by facts and references to developer reactions, to support my views. Most developers are 1) geeks and excited about this 2) happy that mind and marketshare will probably expand. Check out Omni's reaction, for instance, or Gruber's comments.


----------



## powermac (Apr 7, 2006)

My initial reaction to Boot Camp, is much like my initial reaction was to actually going to Boot Camp. I certainly don't think Boot Camp is going to destroy the Mac, or OSX. 
Doesn't this now obligate Apple to provide support to people experiencing trouble with Boot Camp ? 
What are PC manufactures thinking? Will OSX be available for Dells and the like ? 
All ready I am hearing rumors, and getting questions about does Apple feel confident about OSX's future? 
I have to admit, at the present moment, I am not sure what Apple is doing.


----------



## fryke (Apr 7, 2006)

Okay. Just noticed that this post is going to be a little off-topic. So here first my short answer. (You can skip the rest if you want.) -> RacerX: Talk of impending doom and it'll materialise if enough people believe in it and work on it hard enough. I'm against that. I don't want to be blind and deaf, but I guess we all *know* by now that there's a danger. But again: You don't eat the food as hot as it's being cooked. (Dunno if that proverb exists in English in some variant...) Apple was doomed back in the day because they didn't allow clones. Apple was doomed because they weren't Windows compatible. Then Apple was doomed because they DID allow clones. Then they were doomed because of Windows 95. And then because of other things. OS X wasn't working right, so Apple was definitely doomed. Now Apple is doomed because it _does_ allow Windows software to run at native speeds on Mac hardware. There's a pattern. Apple is *always* doomed and it *always* survives improved.

Now for the rather off-topic part... Back when all major apps were not out for OS X, I was our comany's test-frog. I was using Mac OS X as the main operating system and ran PageMaker, Photoshop, Illustrator and GoLive in Classic. That was in 10.0 and 10.1. It was certainly not "ready for production". Several problems, actually, speed only being one of them - one that I actually overcame by saying that while the performance was awful, I was still working faster because I didn't have to reboot the machine five to ten times a day. The pros - like those in that company I'm talking about - need people like you and me, RacerX, to test the waters. To tell them where to go. I showed them the important stepping stones with OS X, set up the machines with them (so they learned...) once Jaguar (and the main Adobe apps) came around and by the time they were working in OS X, they already knew about the pros and cons of the new interface etc. and had much less problems with the Finder misbehaving or the Dock acting up or the Apple menu not being what it once used to be. They used OS X the way Apple intended users to instead of trying to look at it as "the next update to OS 9".

Those pros are now asking me whether it makes sense for them to buy intel Macs. I don't work there anymore, but am their consultant on things IT. I've told them that Adobe's software would run slower on the current intel Macs than on what they already had. What did they do? The right thing, of course. They bought an intel iMac. For now, it's their demo machine, game machine and surf station for customers visiting the office. But they also install their Adobe software etc. on it to see how it (mis-)behaves. They do themselves what I did for them back when OS X was new. So that they know when intel Macs are ready for their purposes.

Now: Sure, they install Windows. They don't consider switching (or they had back when the Mac sucked big time and the G4 was stuck at 500 MHz for a year...), since they _know_ that they can use their PowerPC systems until Adobe's software is intel-native.


----------



## hulkaros (Apr 7, 2006)

From Matrix Reloaded:

Morpheus:
"What happened, happened and couldn't have happened any other way."

Neo:
"How do you know?"

Morpheus:
"We are still alive."

Here is wishing that we will be able to quote the above for a long long time for our favorite platform... Apple!


----------



## dave17lax (Apr 7, 2006)

I believe this is definitely a power user/pro thing to do at the moment. The average consumer won't be doing this, no matter how easy it is. I can't see my mother-in-law trying this out- lol. I think the main people who use Bootcamp will be 1) people that already have windows,  and an investment in software for windows 2) tinkerer's, inventors, crazy kids (like some of us are or used to be).
There will be other groups that do, but the mainstream won't, at least for a little while.
Oh here's another group- Dads with daughters. The daughter will plead for a mac and the Dad will say "Can't, look at all of this windows software I know and have paid for" - the smart daughter will say Intel Mac plz.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 7, 2006)

Lets break this reply into two sections... first addressing what seems like bizarre responses and second addressing what seems like legitimate questions.

Lets start...



			
				Cat said:
			
		

> What are you arguiing here? What is the risk? That developers will stop writing Mac apps and rely on windows virtualisation? I asked you to give a rationale for that, but I haven't seen one. Are you arguing that developers are intrinsically irrational and "pull apps for no reason"? Well, then this transition to Intel and BootCamp will have not noticeable effect as the devs seem not to be rational agents


I gave a rationale... a detailed one, for why they would do such a thing. You even responded to it.

Either you are attempting to inflame the situation by pretending not to see the rationale or you really just don't get it (for reasons that, frankly, don't concern me).



> So Apple's marketshare increases, there are more (albeit part-time) mac users than ever. Apple's stock goes up 10%, people are stunned and amazed, the international press is gushing, Windows delays Vista to spring 2007 _and you think developers will abandond the Mac_ ... IMHO, non sequitur ...


They don't need to see it as abandoning the Mac as their software still runs on Macs.

And I've only discussed (even in the face of you attempting to broaden the subject) developers of both Mac and Windows versions of their own products.



> That's where I don't follow you anymore. Apple has ~5% marketshare and all the companies developing software for the Mac are quite happy to do so


You weren't following me to begin with. And once again you are trying to lump _all_ mac software developers into this when I have not (which may be why you can follow the argument).



> Exactly, since there is no native windows photoshop version for the Mac, people will rather use Rosetta than reboot to windows to use the native windows version ...


Was there a point to that?

I'm sure that a lot of people will stick with Photoshop for Mac (even in Rosetta). Adobe would only have to have enough people that would be willing to run Photoshop in Windows on a Mac to make up for profit losses of dropping the Mac version to make this move.



> You are presuming that those people 1) will buy/already own Windows licences 2) will buy/already own Photoshop for Windows Adobe has stated, like Microsoft, that they will be supoprting OS X on intel, they will ship native versions, in fact, the next version is going to be native. they will tackle this like the OS 9 - OS X transition allowing for 18-24 months, i.e. a full release cycle.


I'm not presuming any of that.

Further, Adobe did a port of Photoshop 5 to Carbon in under two weeks back in 1998... yet Photoshop 6 (released after the release of Mac OS X) was Mac OS 8/9 only. And Photoshop was the last major Adobe application to be released by Adobe.

And as I said earlier, Microsoft has promised things for Mac OS X and not delivered. Promises by businesses are almost as reliable as promises by politicians.



> You seem to forget that there is a Mac version already, the one running under Rosetta. If you have evidence that this is actually compeltely unusabel, please say so or post evidence.


Where did I show evidence that I forgot this... where does this even effect my argument.

In fact, back when Photoshop 4 came out... and not for SGI, they were saying _"will, we already have a version of Photoshop for SGI,  why should we be worried if they skipped us for this release"_. By the time of the Photoshop 5.5 release, many SGI users had either Macs or PCs on the same desk as their beloved SGIs. Now, in many cases, those systems have replaced their SGIs.



> That's why I gave several reasons, backed by facts and references to developer reactions, to support my views.


I can provide _facts and references to developer reactions_ to many things of this nature on many platforms... that all turned out very bad.

Apple is gambling... and I'm just making sure that everyone here knows the odds of success are not 100%.


Okay, enough of the bizarre parts... you actually did asks some real questions that deserved real answers (though it was hard to spot in the mix).



> I guess they are profitable right now, otherwise they would have pulled out. Now, from this situation the only reason I can see for them to rationally consider abandoning the OS X platform, is if the actual number of OS X users and prospective buyers declines.


Lets do the math, shall we...

Of all (100%) Mac users of a product _x_ percent are needed to just pay for the development costs and the remaining _y_ percent (100%-_x_=_y_) makes up the above cost profit.

For companies that already have a Windows version of their product, it is assumed that the Windows version is already profitable.

So what would make such a company stop developing a Mac version of a product?

The answer: if that company was assured that at least _z_ percent of those Mac users would buy the Windows version to continue to use the product... where _z_ is greater than or equal to _y_.

Lets try putting in numbers... lets say (for the sake of argument) that _x_=_y_=50%. And lets say that we are talking about Adobe and Photoshop (again, for the sake of argument).

If Adobe thinks that 50% or more of current Mac Photoshop users would be willing to continue to use Photoshop even if the only way to run it was in Windows on a Mac... that would be enough to kill the Mac version of Photoshop.

Cat... if you can't see that as a rationale for what I'm arguing, there is little that I can do to help you with that. The logic doesn't get much drier than that... and you really can't argue the math.

When people ask why I think this is a bad idea... it always comes down to the math.

________________________



			
				fryke said:
			
		

> Okay. Just noticed that this post is going to be a little off-topic. So here first my short answer. (You can skip the rest if you want.) -> RacerX: Talk of impending doom and it'll materialise if enough people believe in it and work on it hard enough. I'm against that. I don't want to be blind and deaf, but I guess we all *know* by now that there's a danger. But again: You don't eat the food as hot as it's being cooked. (Dunno if that proverb exists in English in some variant...) Apple was doomed back in the day because they didn't allow clones. Apple was doomed because they weren't Windows compatible. Then Apple was doomed because they DID allow clones. Then they were doomed because of Windows 95. And then because of other things. OS X wasn't working right, so Apple was definitely doomed. Now Apple is doomed because it _does_ allow Windows software to run at native speeds on Mac hardware. There's a pattern. Apple is *always* doomed and it *always* survives improved.


I have 2,451 posts in our forum here. I have 1,125 posts in this forum. I have 709 posts in this forum. And I have 277 posts in this forum.

In over 4,500 posts in the last 5 years have I ever talked of Apple's _impending doom_? Do _you_ (the one person who has most likely read all of my post in this forum) ever remember me talking of _impending doom_?

So far I've pointed out that I think this is a big misstep on Apple's part and people have taken it upon themselves to argue with me against that. But I stated at the beginning that I hope that I'm wrong.

And while I know that my arguments are correct... the number of factors in play here are enough that I have yet to say that _this is the end of Apple_ or _this is the end of the Mac_.



I've only said that if it turns out to be the turning point for our platform... I'll be saying _"I told you so"_.


----------



## mindbend (Apr 7, 2006)

Well it's easy to say "I told you so" when you play both sides of the fence! Anyone can suggest some things that MAY happen and then say I told you so. (Just ribbin ya)

So I installed XP on my iMac today. I felt dirty. The iMac is primarily my home machine, so XP via Bootcamp is mostly a curiosity right now. However, I imagine some games will see daylight in XP on this thing quickly. 

At work, when I upgrade our boxes to IntelMac towers one day, we'll mostly be interested in running XP via Parallels Work Station as opposed to booting specifically to XP. I'll be more productive having both OSes open simultaneously. However, on our laptops, it will amazing to be able to boot to either OS for any given situation. We have clients that need work done in both OSes. 

But all that is obvious. Of course this is amazing. Of course a lot of us will have wonderful new flexibility and options. The real question is whether or not this hurts Apple in the long run. As a life long Apple fan, you know where my money is. Apple always finds a way.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Apr 7, 2006)

Although some may find having both OS X and XP on the same system helpful, myself included, all I can see coming out of this is perhaps a small boost to Mac hardware sales and one more reason for developers not to code OS X native software.


----------



## Qion (Apr 7, 2006)

mindbend said:
			
		

> But all that is obvious. Of course this is amazing. Of course a lot of us will have wonderful new flexibility and options. The real question is whether or not this hurts Apple in the long run. As a life long Apple fan, you know where my money is. Apple always finds a way.



And with that being true, I believe that Apple will do nothing but gain from this change.

A lot of people have heard about Macs, and a lot of people have been curious as to what they are. Now that Macs can run Windows too, loads of people are going to buy one just because they see it as the best all-around decision. It looks good, it feels good, and it runs just about any application in the computer world. Why not take the plunge and just get one? What are you losing? 

And with curiosity leading to more Macs sold, tons of new people are going to experience OSX. Even if they buy a Mac just to put Windows on it, they will still use the GUI and see what a Mac is. This leads me to believe that OSX will do nothing but grow. It is so obviously a superior system when literally put side by side with Windows that even the most avid PC-user would consider switching.

Maybe this will be our revolution.


----------



## jwoods (Apr 8, 2006)

I think this is what the move to intel processors was all about.  First, throw out the intel machines and raise hopes and possiblities of running windows.  A few months later, release a bootloader enabling people to install windows if they wish.  I think it's a win-win.  Surely Apple has looked at all the possibilities, and decided to strike.  This helps MS too.  They can still be profitable and avoid the "monopoly" suits IF Apple can gain and hold a larger market share.  I think we'll see MS quitely helping Apple achieve such.

I've only used windows (well, Linux mostly, but windows for games) until 2 months or so ago when I bought my iMac.  I haven't used my winboxen since.  The more people that see and use OS X, the more people will stay.  Ultimately, get enough user base and lower prices and grab some more folks.  

This is key, I think.  Apple is going to have to lower prices on their hardware a bit if they want a bigger marketshare, but they need a bigger market share in order to do this.

No maybe's Qion.....The revolution has begun!  

*Opinion, all of it*


----------



## trusurfer03 (Apr 8, 2006)

i have a question, not being super tech savvy.

i know bootcamp is only for Intel macs: is that becasue this is only possible on the intel chip? if not is there a possibility of a PPC version?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Apr 8, 2006)

trusurfer03 said:
			
		

> i know bootcamp is only for Intel macs: is that becasue this is only possible on the intel chip?


Yes.


> if not is there a possibility of a PPC version?


No... you cannot run something compiled for a CISC-based processor natively on a RISC-based processor without code translation or emulation.  Since that already exists in the form of several free and commercial applications, it's unlikely that Apple would pursue loading Windows on a PowerPC-based Mac.


----------



## senne (Apr 9, 2006)

The strategy of Apple is pretty clear. It's like the iPod-iTMS-Mac thing. People who wants to buy legal music go to the iTMS, because that's the most popular. To get that music with them on the road, they'll have to buy an iPod. Where do you buy that? At the Apple Store. The first thing you see at the Apple Store aren't iPods. But you'll see gorgeous iMacs, iBooks, Macbooks and Powermacs, because those products are getting much more attention at the Apple Store. 

That's one way to attract people to Macs, but now Apple has 'found' another way: Windows on Intel Macs. People will buy Macs now because they can run *everything* on it. Especially Windows, so they're sure that they always have their good ol' system, in case. When they first boot their Mac, they will not see Windows but Mac OS X. The look and feel of Mac OS X will be strange at first, but then they'll begin to like it. Everywhere they'll hear Apple (and other people, like us) say that Mac OS X is safer, faster, etc... than Windows. Apple is already doing that btw: 1 and 2.

And now Apple has finally found a way to convince gamers and architects (most popular CAD apps aren't compatible with Mac) to switch to Mac. 

I think it's one of the best business moves Apple has ever made.


----------



## Mikuro (Apr 9, 2006)

senne said:
			
		

> And now Apple has finally found a way to convince gamers and architects (most popular CAD apps aren't compatible with Mac) to switch to Mac.


I don't know about that. Gamers want good, upgradeable graphics cards. Currently, the Intel Macs don't offer that. The Mac Mini doesn't even have a graphics card, and while the iMac has a pretty good one, I don't think it's upgradeable. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

If Apple really wants to attract a wide range of Windows users, including gamers, they need to cater to their hardware needs. Apple has _never_ done this.


----------



## fryke (Apr 9, 2006)

You're right, RacerX, you're not _generally_ known as a doom-sayer. However: Since the subject of Windows on intel Macs first cropped up, you went through denial ("those Macs are not PCs, they won't run Windows") and fear ("Apple is gambling and all other platforms I knew have gone by now..."). I'm not saying your arguments are way-off or totally wrong. I just think that it's not a black and white world here.

If you catch me in the future using a computer running Windows as my main system for work and fun, I'll eat one of my three hats is what I'm saying. What I foresee (and many others do as well) is that virtualisation technologies will make things more interoperable. And this is *bad* for Windows, although they might not yet see that. Because it'll eat away from MS' market share. People never say "I would like to move to linux/Mac but it doesn't have the same kind of technology at its base". They say that on other systems they are missing one or two applications they think they can't live without. [Or games, but those are easily handled (get a game system instead of a PC...).] If you can run those applications transparently on both linux and Mac OS X, those two systems will win market share (and by that I primarily mean the systems actually _used_ by people, not necessarily market figures, since that's a strange field for linux...). More and more, people will get used to *NOT* having Windows as the base system.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 9, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> However: Since the subject of Windows on intel Macs first cropped up, you went through denial ("those Macs are not PCs, they won't run Windows")...


I was going off of what I was told by people inside Apple...  it wasn't denial, it was high level misinformation.

And from what I was told in the beginning (when the move to Intel was announced) I was surprised and shocked (and worried) at the early release of Intel hardware. Frankly, it didn't match the timeline I was originally given (or any estimates I would have made based on the needed engineering).

What I assumed was that the hardware division was actually alerted to the transition months earlier than I had originally been told.

Now I know that they hadn't... and that Apple wasn't planning on locking down the platform (which makes the release date of the first Intel Macs understandable).

I would hardly call being well informed by people who were not very well informed (or couldn't tell me when things changed, which is more likely the case) _denial_. Any one who knows people in Apple knows that what info you get from them you are lucky to get at all, and that you *never* ask them for information (or for updates or changes).

I think the term _denial_ is a poor choice of wording on your part.

The only way I could be in _denial_ would be to not admit that I was wrong... and I've never been known for not admitting when I was wrong (just ask Bob Cringely, we had a long argument on a subject and I admitted when I was wrong). That would be _denial_, but before we had proof either way can hardly be classified as _denial_.



> and fear ("Apple is gambling and all other platforms I knew have gone by now...").


I've laid out the logic of my arguments against this... and based on those arguments, I'm understandably worried.

I'm not going to hide that fact. Nor am I going to sugar coat this because it is Apple. In the end, Apple is a corporation and we are all individuals... Apple is looking out for Apple, and we need to look out for ourselves (because Apple isn't going to).

As I said, I hope that I'm wrong.

But I also know that people jumping up and down about how great this is... or just as bad, no longer complaining about software that doesn't run on Macs, is what could make my grim predictions come to life.

We, as Mac users, have survived as a platform by not being content or settling for less. If we lose that edge, that could be enough to make the platform a thing of the past.

And to date that is what I've been arguing... and warning about.

I'm not a doom-sayer... what I'm saying is don't let this get us complacent. And realize that developers are in business and this gives some of them an excuse to down size... so we need to be louder because of this.



And a little off subject...

Surely you couldn't have thought that a comment like _"Since the subject of Windows on intel Macs first cropped up, you went through denial and fear"_ would go unanswered.

I've been known to drop a _novel_ (  or at least a _novella_) in response to much less.


----------



## Cat (Apr 10, 2006)

In retrospect, I'd be more worried about Apple _not_ releaseing something like BootCamp or virtualisation. Think about it: before the end of the year, or early on next year, Apple will release Leopard, which will be the first publically in-stores available Mac OS X version that runs natively on x86 hardware. Just like with Windows on Apple hardware, sooner or later a way will be found to run OS X on "generic" (some restrictions may apply) x86 hardware. Since Apple makes most proft from harware sales, it would be quite bad for Apple if people could go and run OS X on non-Apple hardware. Apple want to make a nice profit by selling Macintoshes, so they have to avoid that people can get all the benefits of OS X and other Apple software without using Apple hardware. What to do? Well, making Macintoshes dual-bootable will entice those people, who would have been likely to try out OS X on generic x86 hardware, to try out Apple's hardware. Apple now provides machines that can run all major OS'es (I've even heard about people trying to install Solaris), which is a major benefit. Instead of having people snubbing their ("overpriced") hardware, they got a lot of Windows users interested in their most profitable product line. In this scenario everyone wins: Apple sells their hardware (bundled with great OS & software), Windows sells their software, Users at alrge get more choice and freedom. Who loses are the little game-porting companies, for which there will be no more need. From a user perspective that is relatively irrelevant. For Apple too that is relatively irrelevant (they don't focus on gamers anyway. 

The other scenario is that within 6 months of the release of Leppy someone wins $15k for hacking OS X to run on generic hardware. That would probably compell the tech savvy fence-sitters to jump ship and get a nice dual-booting AMD instead of buying a (in this scenario non existent) dual booting mac. This would be worse ni the long run. Apple loses potential buyers and they will incur in legal costs and negative publicity by going after the hackers. There is no opportunity to grow their marketshare, nothing will change on the developer front. In short, no progress but stagnation. 

Racer X, you accused me of holding "bizzarre" views, but honestly I think you have an exceedingly negative view of the situation.



			
				RacerX said:
			
		

> If Adobe thinks that 50% or more of current Mac Photoshop users would be willing to continue to use Photoshop even if the only way to run it was in Windows on a Mac... that would be enough to kill the Mac version of Photoshop.



How likely is it that 50% of Mac Photosop users are going to accept dual booting into Windows to use photoshop? Mac users have been complaining about the UI of Firefox for not being "mac-like", what do you think they will tell Adobe if they try to pull this off? I suppose it is more likely that we will see a mass-migration to the Gimp sooner than seeing 50% of Mac users prefer Photoshop on Windows, no matter the speed gain. We've stuck with Macs throughout the G4 era and the OS 9/OS X transition, _developers_ have stuck with Macs throughout the G4 era and the OS 9/OS X transition. I see no reason why they should abandon them now. You quoted several OSes that went bust, for various resons, but in very different situations than Apple's right now. Windows compatibility à la Classic, let alone dual booting, is not going to kill Mac development. Why? I'll spell it out for you:

- Mac apps are selling beatifully right now, making very nice profits. 
- Mac users are not likely to "switch to windows". 
- Dual booting is attractive to Windows users and Mac gamers.
- If current wintel users buy a mac, this increases Apple's marketshare.
- Not all of these new switchers are going to use Windows exclusively on their new Macs.
- More Mac users means more potential customers for Mac developers.
- BootCamp -> More marketshare & profits and more users & customers
- This is a Good Thing&#8482;.

For similar positive views, cf. Gruber - Daring fireball or Siracusa - Fat Bits. I tend to agree with these other gentlemen rather than with you on this occasion.


----------



## Satcomer (Apr 10, 2006)

I could not stop laughing at this comic.


----------



## powermac (Apr 10, 2006)

How does Boot Camp handle, like keyboard mapping, on the Mac? Does the Apple key act as the Windows key? Can you configure certain options? Does Airport work well ?


----------



## bbloke (Apr 10, 2006)

I have mixed feelings about the move.

It could be a good thing in that it might entice otherwise hesitant Windows users to buy a Mac, and it would mean people can buy one computer instead of both a PC and a Mac (for those forced to use Windows programs, or developing for Windows, and do not want to or cannot use Virtual PC).  We may see a rise in the Mac's market share.

I do have some concerns, however.  The main thing I fear is decrease in development of OS X apps. We have seen developers continue to write for OS X, despite the possibilities for them to tell us to use Virtual PC or to use Classic mode (for Windows or for OS 9 apps, respectively), rather than writing new software.  I worry that this is a bit different.  Before, OS X was to be the future and Classic was the past, so developers probably had more motivation to make the switch.  If they wanted our money, they had to keep with the times in the Mac world.  As for Virtual PC, it has been imperfect, from what I understand, although viable for some things.  

My concern is that it is not about market share, but about a lowest common denominator. If all future Macs can run Windows and Linux users can use some Windows programs via WINE, then, like the Classic-to-OS X switch, it could be said by developers that the future will be everyone being able to run Windows programs, and this will be the most cost effective way of developing software.  Also, the Windows programs will work and be "good enough," rather than having older-style emulation issues which might make the software unusable.  So, before, they tended to need to write Mac specific apps to get our money, now they might be able to get away with writing only Windows versions, which we would still be able to use.

I'm not trying to be negative, just express that I'm a little uneasy about this move.  At first I though it was a bold move and one which might have positive consequences, but then some doubts started to creep in and I became a bit concerned.  I guess we have to wait and see, and monitor how software companies might follow each others' lead. As I say, this could be a good opportunity, but I can't help but feel this is quite a gamble.


----------



## bbloke (Apr 10, 2006)

By the way, MacUser (UK) has pointed something out:



			
				MacUser (UK) said:
			
		

> Several owners of Intel Macs have been told by staff at Apple's retail stores that installing Boot Camp will invalidate the warranty on their machines.
> 
> Boot Camp is Apple's new software that enables Windows XP to run on Intel Macs. The warranty question arises from the fact that the software is available as a beta for which Apple provides no technical support.
> 
> ...


----------



## RacerX (Apr 10, 2006)

Cat said:
			
		

> In retrospect, I'd be more worried about Apple _not_ releaseing something like BootCamp or virtualisation. Think about it...



Where did I ever argue that there are no benefits of this? There are benefits, no doubt about it. And I challenge you to show where I said that no benefits exist because of this.



> Racer X, you accused me of holding "bizzarre" views, but honestly I think you have an exceedingly negative view of the situation.


You can think that, but it would be strictly an opinion....

My view is logic based, and doesn't require a negative view point to reach it's conclusion.



> How likely is it that 50% of Mac Photosop users are going to accept dual booting into Windows to use photoshop? Mac users have been complaining about the UI of Firefox for not being "mac-like", what do you think they will tell Adobe if they try to pull this off?


Firstly... _50%_, _Photoshop_ and _Adobe_ were all dropped in for the sake of illustrating the argument... I never said that those numbers actually applied for Photoshop.


As for what I believe... it is actually worse than you would think.

I think more than 50% (more like 80-90%) of Mac Photoshop users would boot into Windows or move to Windows within three release cycles if Adobe dropped development of Photoshop for Mac. What is even worse... Adobe won't just drop development of Photoshop. They would drop all the apps in the Creative Suite at once.

How bad would that be?

Currently most copies of Photoshop are being bought (or upgraded) via the Creative Suite. Further, many Photoshop users are also users of Illustrator, Acrobat and InDesign... and if moving to the Windows version of Photoshop is done, odds are they are going to be doing it for all these apps at once. No switching back and forth... all their main apps will be in Windows, they'll be spending all their time in Windows.

The possibility is real and inescapable.

Secondly, I have been saying (from the start) that the *only* way to truly counter this is to not be complacent about the fact that you can now run Windows-only apps on Macs via Boot Camp.


And no, you wouldn't see a mass migration to Gimp.

StarOffice has been a fully competitive (feature wise) office suite on Windows for years. When Sun offered it for free, there were people that thought that Microsoft Office was doomed.

What happened?

Nothing really. Very few people switched.

Sun changed their plan and started charging for StarOffice again (and released the base code, which is now OpenOffice, for free). Why? They found that people didn't trust free software.

Sun increased use by putting a price tag on StarOffice, but not by much. People just won't stop using MS Office.

In the end, users of Adobe's apps are very much like that. It is more important to be working in Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign than to be using them in the Mac OS rather than Windows. 

I'm not saying that they would be happy about it, but would they stop using Photoshop and the like to stay with the Mac OS... the vast majority would say no.



Now, one has to ask the question... why do you need me to run this scenario _over and over again_?

Everytime you argue this point, I'm just going to go back and detail the real possibilities that we are facing. And I have no reason to play up any of the positives of this move or reasons why it could not end up happening... because you are arguing that this isn't possible when it absolutely is.

My suggestion is two fold...(1) Stop with the wild rationalizations and bizarre arguments. It both makes it hard to take you seriously in the discussion and it undermines your arguments (some of which I've never disputed... others are bordering on fantasy or even delusion, ie. your Gimp scenario).

(2) By arguing this further, you are only making me draw more and more focus on this. I only ever wanted to make sure that the possibility was not over looked. I was successful in my first post in this thread for doing that. By continuing here, you are just making me emphasize this point more and more. And emphasizing what is a strong and logically based argument more and more is only going to make people worry more about it than... well frankly, more than *I* am.​If these are your goals, then by all means, let us continue. But if these are not the intended results, you may really want to cut your losses here.




Look... another long post. Who would have thought?


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Apr 10, 2006)

ladies:  this is not something that either of you can win, if that is your aim.  the only test here, is time.  i suppose i would agree more with RacerX on most points though.  many people, the non techy people, the _majority_ don't care about mac as much as we do.  

it's like the Newbury Bypass.  a road that needed to be built.  the people that objected to it's building were the people that were most passionate about it, the people who lived in the way of it...  

these were, however far too small a populace to garner much of a voice.  the road got built.  no-one besides the small group of the passionate, cared.  

sad, but true.  

i know 5 people with a mac. 4 of them use it because they do graphics and they were told that it's the best platform to do it.  they don't know how much ram they've got, or what version of the OS it is.  they don't care.  it's a tool that allows them to do work.  if someone told them when they needed to upgrade in a couple of years time, that they're going to have to use windows now because Creative Suite isn't being made for mac any more, then they will.  they'll buy a dell, because it's powerful and cheap. it runs photoshop, which to be fair, looks the same regardless of what computer you use it on, and that's what they need to earn a living.  these uncaring people are the masses, and they passively dictate how business works.

sad but true, but i can only guess at this point.


----------



## sirstaunch (Apr 10, 2006)

A review

Didn't go through 15 pages of this thread to see if anyones posted this sorry


----------



## mindbend (Apr 10, 2006)

(For the pessimists) Guys, guys, slow down. Do you not understand simple economics? 

If a product has enough demand to offset development costs and make a profit then it will continue to be created. It's that simple.

If we, as Mac users, decide to just boot to Windows to play Half Life, then yes, HL will not ever appear in OS X. Because essentially the demand for it has died.

But (as one example) I'm not rebooting to run Photoshop and I'm also not going to run Photoshop in Parallels Workstation either. I imagine most Mac users won't. Therefore, the demand is still there. The product will continue to be developed for us.

And if an apps get the axe for OS X, it will be our own fault, not Apple's, not Microsoft's and not Adobe's. The only reason it will get axed is because nobody is buying it. That's our fault. If we love OS X so much, then just continue buying OS X software.

Don't worry! Just keep repeating "If there is demand for a product, it will be built." Yeah, we may only be 3% or whatever, but that's still millions of people. I don't know any rational company that would turn away millions of customers.

And I didn't even mention the fact that Windows is still Windows, which means it's super susceptible to spyware and viruses, so for that reason alone, people are going to want to run natively in OS X.


----------



## macosxuser (Apr 11, 2006)

How about this one.

How many PC users would buy a Dell computer that can run a licensed version of OSX  just because of OSX.

I would suspect that it would be not many.

I can't see PC users flocking to the mac because of OSX.

Your either a mac user or your not.

I don't think most PC users really care about Microsoft but they do care about the programs they run.

I think the PC games headz are not going to switch.

Maybe some business or education people might.

I think running windows on a mac will be mostly used by existing mac users for a few games and programs like autocad and photoshop and to run a few other missing mac apps.


----------



## mindbend (Apr 11, 2006)

You just hit one market that nobody seems to be talking about: education.

The once-ripe education market has been dwindling for a while now. I imagine this announcement is going to just about lock in a lot of hardware sales.


----------



## mw84 (Apr 11, 2006)

powermac said:
			
		

> How does Boot Camp handle, like keyboard mapping, on the Mac? Does the Apple key act as the Windows key? Can you configure certain options? Does Airport work well ?




I read a review yesterday, someone had installed Bootcamp on a MBP.

Apparently he had problems with the trackpad mouse, no support for the backlit keyboard and the isight didn't work either, didn't mention key mapping though. Not sure how much of what he is claiming is true or not.


----------



## Veljo (Apr 11, 2006)

mw84 said:
			
		

> I read a review yesterday, someone had installed Bootcamp on a MBP.
> 
> Apparently he had problems with the trackpad mouse, no support for the backlit keyboard and the isight didn't work either, didn't mention key mapping though. Not sure how much of what he is claiming is true or not.


Apple have mentioned that the backlit keyboard and iSight are two things that won't work. They're expecting to include support for these at a later date.


----------



## powermac (Apr 12, 2006)

mw84 said:
			
		

> I read a review yesterday, someone had installed Bootcamp on a MBP.
> 
> Apparently he had problems with the trackpad mouse, no support for the backlit keyboard and the isight didn't work either, didn't mention key mapping though. Not sure how much of what he is claiming is true or not.



It appears Boot Camp needs some additional work. Just a curious question, I have a PowerBook, and plan on using it for a few more years.


----------



## fryke (Apr 12, 2006)

and what would your curious question be?


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Apr 12, 2006)

powermac said:
			
		

> It appears Boot Camp needs some additional work.



that's why it's Beta, and also why it's currently free.


----------



## eric2006 (Apr 18, 2006)

> DUE TO THE POTENTIAL THREAT OF SUBVERSION BY COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT PRESENTED BY DUAL-BOOTING INTO WINDOWS USING BOOT CAMP, OUR DEAR LEADER STEVE JOBS (PRAISE BE UNTO HIM!) HAS ORDERED THAT ALL MAC USERS REPORT FOR MANDATORY REPROGRAMMING.
> CLICK HERE TO FIND A REPROGRAMMING CENTER IN YOUR AREA.
> ACCORDING TO PARTY LEADER PHIL SCHILLER, ALL MAC USERS WILL UNDERGO A VIGOROUS PROGRAM OF CALISTHENICS AND IDEOLOGICAL REINDOCTRINATION - WHICH WILL INCLUDE SHOWING THE CLASSIC &#8220;1984&#8243; SUPER BOWL AD REPEATEDLY UNTIL ALL SUBVERSIVE THOUGHT IS PURGED FROM THE BODY. THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO BE A THREAT TO THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION WILL BE FLOGGED WITH FIREWIRE CABLES UNTIL THEY SEE THE ERROR OF THEIR WAYS, CONFESS THEIR COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY THOUGHTS AND SEEK THE ABSOLUTION OF OUR DEAR LEADER (PRAISE BE UNTO HIM!).
> USERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO TURN IN THEIR FELLOW USERS WHO MAY HAVE BEEN OBSERVED RUNNING WINDOWS, READING WINDOWS WORLD OR MENTIONING THE NAME &#8220;PAUL THURROTT&#8221; IN SENTENCES THAT DO NOT ALSO INCLUDE THE WORD &#8220;SUCKS.&#8221; FOR EACH TRAITOR TO THE REVOLUTION THEY TURN IN, CITIZENS OF THE MAC COMMUNITY WILL BE REWARDED WITH A $1.00 CREDIT AT THE ITUNES MUSIC STORE.
> ...





> As many pundits and members of the Mac community feared, Apple&#8217;s decision to allow dual booting of Macs into Windows has caused all OS X developers to abandon the platform. Across the board, developers are telling those who find the OS X environment infinitely more appealing: &#8220;Just boot into Windows.&#8221;
> &#8220;This is exactly as I feared,&#8221; said Jerry Kindall. &#8220;This move to Intel has been the death knell for Apple. Developers have no reason to develop for the Mac when they can easily tell users to spend several minutes rebooting into a crappier operating system that they hate to use.
> &#8220;It just makes good business sense.&#8221;
> Experts expect that, at the rate developers are telling users to &#8220;just boot into Windows&#8221;, within three years the only reason to boot into Mac OS X will be to move some files around with the Finder, play Chess and enjoy brushed metal interfaces.
> ...


- from www.crazyapplerumors.com


----------



## powermac (Apr 19, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> and what would your curious question be?


My question was about how the keys were treated under Boot Camp. I read the Airport Card worked, etc.


----------



## Myke (Apr 19, 2006)

The keyboard layout does seem to be a problem. I am still trying to work out why certain keys wont work - this must be down to the different Mac / PC layout. I don't have a PC keyboard to compare but I am wondering if there's a website out there that maps a key for key comparision. In fact, now I have thought of it, I'll go and take a look!


----------



## Myke (Apr 19, 2006)

OK, here is the answer it seems. I  haven't tried it yet but a WindozeXP app called KeyTweek would seem to do the business. You can find it at
http://webpages.charter.net/krumsick/


----------

