BootCamp run Windows on Mac

[hulkaros]

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]

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]

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

Lets start...

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.

________________________

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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™.

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]

I could not stop laughing at this comic.

 

[powermac]

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]

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]

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

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.

According to the Boot Camp release notes that accompany the software: 'SHOULD THE APPLE SOFTWARE PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE ENTIRE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION' (Apple's capitals), although it goes on to say that warranties may be protected by local laws.

Reports on Apple's discussion boards suggest that Apple store employees have been told to warn users not to install Boot Camp.

'Joshua Wolf' phoned his store after the Mac Hardware Test reported an error with his MacBook Pro.

'The guy at the store told me via the phone, "You didn't install Boot Camp did you? That's a beta and it voids your warranty.", Wolf writes.

Mischa Mclachlan received a similar warning: 'I was in the Apple Store in the UK buying a new iMac Core Duo, i mentioned to them i was gonna try Bootcamp, and they said "Oooo.. i wouldn't do that...that will void your warrantee!" and they made strong references to HARDWARE to me.'

However coreyammons was told by Apple that his warranty is safe: 'OK, so all this got me a little worried so I called AppleCare and asked. I asked "if I install Boot Camp will it void my warranty since it is Beta software." He said "Hmmm, that is a good question, I do not know let me check..." I thought Oh Crap! He came back on the phone and said "No, it does not. " So I asked one more time for clarification. I asked "So if I install Boot Camp it will not void my warranty correct?" He said, "That is correct, it will not."

Apple, which has yet to contribute to the Discussions thread, has been asked to clarify the situation.

 

[RacerX]

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]

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.