or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's "Boot Camp" beta runs Windows XP on Macs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's "Boot Camp" beta runs Windows XP on Macs - Page 11

post #401 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
It's all possible

Honestly, I think boot camp is more for the professional / business world than for "pc gamers to game on macs" or "home users to use their pc software". Can home users do that??? Of course... but I think this is a strategy to CONVERT BUSINESSES TO APPLE. Think about the type of users that are least likely to convert... BUSINESSES. It's a fact. Some businesses are still using dos machines, or old unix machines to carry out tasks. Some still run windows 98 or windows 3.1. Needless to say I think there will be a lot of businesses upgrading in the near future because their hardware is getting so out of date and non supported.

If apple can grab some of these businesses, it would definitely help them in the long run. Losing the businesses in the world is why they lost so much market share.

And think about it. These cheap businesses that are running windows 95 and an old version of office, aren't going to want to buy a bunch of software. So what do they do? Dual boot into it when they NEED it. Sounds like a much better reason to release bootcamp than for home users.

That depends on how, and even if, it's supported. Apple won't support Windows, and so far, MS isn't sure if they will.

While the consumer might not care too much, business will. I've been reading a lot about that very issue the past few days. Business will want someone to step up, and take responsibility. It could be that the bigger, commercial VARs will do that. But, it remains to be seen.

Ironically, MS has supported their OS when running through SoftWindows, and VPC (from the beginning, before they bought it). Those programs were licesensed as actual computers. The sticker required on all machines running Windows was even in the box. For that reason, I think they will support it, but until they give the ok, it's still up in the air.

I do know some bussiness people who are interested, but they have already had Mac's in their organizations.

But, it's the gamers who have been making the most noise. Go to most non-Mac enthusiasts sites, and you will see what I mean.
post #402 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross

While the consumer might not care too much, business will. I've been reading a lot about that very issue the past few days. Business will want someone to step up, and take responsibility. It could be that the bigger, commercial VARs will do that. But, it remains to be seen.

Without SOMEBODY supporting it, it's only going to have impact with enthusiasts. NO way will businesses get involved. Boot Camp is generating a lot of buzz though. On CNN(tv) they had a blurb on it.
post #403 of 511
Originally posted by emig647
Honestly, I think boot camp is more for the professional / business world than for "pc gamers to game on macs" or "home users to use their pc software". Can home users do that??? Of course... but I think this is a strategy to CONVERT BUSINESSES TO APPLE. Think about the type of users that are least likely to convert... BUSINESSES. It's a fact. Some businesses are still using dos machines, or old unix machines to carry out tasks. Some still run windows 98 or windows 3.1. Needless to say I think there will be a lot of businesses upgrading in the near future because their hardware is getting so out of date and non supported.

If apple can grab some of these businesses, it would definitely help them in the long run. Losing the businesses in the world is why they lost so much market share.

And think about it. These cheap businesses that are running windows 95 and an old version of office, aren't going to want to buy a bunch of software. So what do they do? Dual boot into it when they NEED it. Sounds like a much better reason to release bootcamp than for home users.



Dude, that's exactly what I said in a few posts above yours....
"There's something Steve is targeting and a game plan we're clearly not seeing. Something up his sleeve. A big risk perhaps but maybe his goal is to take on the Windows-centric business world and triumph by increasing Mac market share in the business environment."

This is a move by Steve to assault the business market...!! Cool someone agrees with me 8)

Remember it may not be dual-boot but also Apple-made virtualization that would be the key for these businesses. Like I said, imagine you get an Intel iMac instead of a Dell, run Outlook (bleahh), easily flip over to the OS X side and write on some Dashboard stickies at the same time. Beautiful. Seamless. The Mac takes on the business world, gains traction and market share.
post #404 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
...Remember it may not be dual-boot but also Apple-made virtualization that would be the key for these businesses. Like I said, imagine you get an Intel iMac instead of a Dell, run Outlook (bleahh), easily flip over to the OS X side and write on some Dashboard stickies at the same time. Beautiful. Seamless. The Mac takes on the business world, gains traction and market share.

Seems a natural extension of fast user switching and the cube transition, does it not? While it would be cool for Apple to build into the Mac OS support for running multiple OS' Boot Camp might be as far as they would want to go. After all, third party developers do need something to do.
post #405 of 511
The real question is...how is Placebo feeling right now?
My computer can beat up your computer.
Reply
My computer can beat up your computer.
Reply
post #406 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman

This is a move by Steve to assault the business market...!! Cool someone agrees with me 8)[/B]

I can see it. I can almost imagine OS X turning into a key virtualization OS. I mean... hell. Why not virtualize windows, solaris, linux.. etc etc... and that way NO other computer would be thought of for business besides an apple. I condemned virtualization a few pages ago... and in current status I agree. But what if apple could find a way to give OS X pure control over hardware but "lease" the hardware to the virtualized OS's without using communication back to OS X? Could prove very useful in a business environment.

Either way, I picture this move as totally towards business. Sure gamers are happy. Sure home users are happy. But honestly, how much does it help apple to sell their computers to just run windows on them all the time. Does it REALLY improve marketshare? Not really.

I've always said this...

If apple would advertise why the OS is so great, they would sell more computers. Fact is, many people don't know why OS X is cool. They hear mac and shrivel. But if apple would spend more in advertising the OS... i believe pc users would see why Macs are easier to use, and why they should switch. Hearing #'s (ghz, ram, etc) doesn't always sell a computer. Consumers pretend to know what these things mean... but really they just hear the # and know bigger is better. Give them a visualization of the machine and watch it sell faster.

Point being... apple needs to sell these machines for the OS. If they can sell these machines so business start dabbling in OS X... they just scored some good points in the business world.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #407 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
If apple would advertise why the OS is so great, they would sell more computers. Fact is, many people don't know why OS X is cool. They hear mac and shrivel. But if apple would spend more in advertising the OS... i believe pc users would see why Macs are easier to use, and why they should switch...

It is one of those great Apple mysteries, like the one-buttoned mouse (which thank heavens has changed, but only relatively recently). The promotion of Mac OS X has been poor, to say the least.

I don't believe that trumpeting a change of CPU while simultaneously insulting the user's choice of OS is a very good marketing strategy. The average computer user doesn't give a monkey's what the processor is, so long as it's fast enough to get the job done. But they most certainly will object to calling the Windows OS and planet of Windows apps as "dull". Suggesting that the PC boxes themselves are "dull" also suggests that the appearance of the case is an important consideration for most people. It's not. Sure it's nice to have good-looking hardware, and Apple have to be one of the best in creating that 'wow-factor'. But it's not top of the list of hardware requirements. Therefore it should not be top of the list of marketing angles.

Yet Apple have created this amazing OS which is hardly ever promoted. This is what people will be looking at while they're working - not the flipping box! It's the main selling point of Macs. A simple inexpensive ad showing off what Tiger can offer is long overdue. Hell, even Jaguar was ready for primetime.

You can rest assured that Vista will be promoted to death (well, literally I hope! ). So please Apple, create a great ad for Leopard. It's so obvious. So essential. So overdue. I cannot for the life of me understand why it's kept so hidden.

(rant over)
"If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything" Robert Zemeckis/Bob Gale/Robert_E._Lee
Reply
"If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything" Robert Zemeckis/Bob Gale/Robert_E._Lee
Reply
post #408 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by mynamehere
The real question is...how is Placebo feeling right now?

Probably no different...his main reason for leaving was that he is a "geek at heart" and likes to tinker inside computers...and price was also a big factor.

So I think he'll be better off using a PC and suffering all the consequences that come with it. He won't mind the consequences though.
post #409 of 511
Quote:
So please Apple, create a great ad for Leopard. It's so obvious. So essential. So overdue. I cannot for the life of me understand why it's kept so hidden.

Anybody here a shareholder and lives in the Bay Area? Someone should go to the shareholders' meeting and ask Jobs that question. I have always wondered why nobody ever asks him that. There may be a simple and sensible answer, such as:

- Part of the deal with MS was not to advertise Mac OS X.
- Focus group studies of people viewing commercials of OS X revealed that they thought they were seeing a demo of Windows
- Advertising OS X would result in MS launching a huge multi-bazillion dollar XP campaign which would show XP doing photos, video, music, etc - all the things that the OS X ad would have highlighted. And of course at the end it would say "Windows. Used by 96% of all the computers on earth.", or something equally un-refutable.

Who knows?

Do we have a volunteer to attend the shareholders' meeting (no, I don't know offhand when it is)?
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #410 of 511
The meeting's on the 27th, 10 AM, Apple HQ.

Source.
post #411 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by mynamehere
The real question is...how is Placebo feeling right now?

Why don't you ask him? I wasn't planning to buy a computer until June anyways since that's when the AM2 chipset was coming out, and now I'm considering buying a Powermac-equivalent Intel Mac when they are announced in August (which is my suspicion, mirroring the Powermac G5 launch). So far Conroe looks like an extremely capable processor, Bootcamp has been announced and the XP graphics drivers don't suck, and numerous Intel Macs have been proven to have upgradeable processors.
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Probably no different...his main reason for leaving was that he is a "geek at heart" and likes to tinker inside computers...and price was also a big factor.

So I think he'll be better off using a PC and suffering all the consequences that come with it. He won't mind the consequences though.

1) You're still an idiot. 2) I'd stick with a PC if being able to run Mac OS X and Windows on one box with graphics accelleration supported on both wasn't being offered so temptingly by Apple.
post #412 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by lundy
Anybody here a shareholder and lives in the Bay Area? Someone should go to the shareholders' meeting and ask Jobs that question. I have always wondered why nobody ever asks him that. There may be a simple and sensible answer, such as:

- Part of the deal with MS was not to advertise Mac OS X.
- Focus group studies of people viewing commercials of OS X revealed that they thought they were seeing a demo of Windows
- Advertising OS X would result in MS launching a huge multi-bazillion dollar XP campaign which would show XP doing photos, video, music, etc - all the things that the OS X ad would have highlighted. And of course at the end it would say "Windows. Used by 96% of all the computers on earth.", or something equally un-refutable.

Who knows?

Do we have a volunteer to attend the shareholders' meeting (no, I don't know offhand when it is)?

I'm a stockholder, but I live in NYC, and that amount of traveling for a stockholders meeting has always seemed to be a waste of time.

They won't answer that question anyway.

Apple has no deal not to advertise X. They simply choose not to.

It's a flaw in their strategy.

They don't conduct focus groups, thank god, as those are useless, as I can attest to from my own time in the ad business.

MS already has a couple of GREAT ads on tv, and has for some time now, showing that very thing. When I first saw the first ad, I thought it was a great ad that Apple put up, and was thinking that it was about time Apple did so. Then, at the end, it said that you could do so many things with MS software! I was floored! And Apple had those asinine switcher ads. Or, their brilliant ad where some kid gets a G5, and it blows a hole in the house. Wonderful. That'll do it!

MS has already said that they will spend, and this is NOT a typo, $500 million to advertise Vista.
post #413 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by emig647
Honestly, I think boot camp is more for the professional / business world than for "pc gamers to game on macs" or "home users to use their pc software". Can home users do that??? Of course... but I think this is a strategy to CONVERT BUSINESSES TO APPLE. Think about the type of users that are least likely to convert... BUSINESSES. It's a fact. Some businesses are still using dos machines, or old unix machines to carry out tasks. Some still run windows 98 or windows 3.1. Needless to say I think there will be a lot of businesses upgrading in the near future because their hardware is getting so out of date and non supported.

If apple can grab some of these businesses, it would definitely help them in the long run. Losing the businesses in the world is why they lost so much market share.

And think about it. These cheap businesses that are running windows 95 and an old version of office, aren't going to want to buy a bunch of software. So what do they do? Dual boot into it when they NEED it. Sounds like a much better reason to release bootcamp than for home users.



Dude, that's exactly what I said in a few posts above yours....
"There's something Steve is targeting and a game plan we're clearly not seeing. Something up his sleeve. A big risk perhaps but maybe his goal is to take on the Windows-centric business world and triumph by increasing Mac market share in the business environment."

This is a move by Steve to assault the business market...!! Cool someone agrees with me 8)

Remember it may not be dual-boot but also Apple-made virtualization that would be the key for these businesses. Like I said, imagine you get an Intel iMac instead of a Dell, run Outlook (bleahh), easily flip over to the OS X side and write on some Dashboard stickies at the same time. Beautiful. Seamless. The Mac takes on the business world, gains traction and market share.

I think you should read this.

John is not only an expert in computing (his degrees are in computer cpu, and systems design), but he is a heavy Mac user for a ways back. His articles are always goo. Also, check out the article by Gruber (and join his site!) he refers to. I agree with what he says here.

http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/4/8/3524
post #414 of 511
Quote:
$500 million to advertise Vista

I'm sure a lot is riding on Vista for them. They need it to be another Windows 95. MS stock has been pretty stagnant and they need a hit.

I read MS expects (or hopes) to sell 400 million copies of Vista in the first 18 months. Many analysts don't expect business to heavily adopt Vista for a couple years. The general consumer base doesn't even know it exist. With a likely price tag of $150 to $300 most people in the general public are likely to be rather apathetic when its shipped.

So $500 million will be spent to prime excitement and sales. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Apple's lack of advertisement tells me they aren't really all that interested in taking on Dell or MS directly. They are pretty satisfied with the momentum of their user base and their current growth.
post #415 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I think you should read this.

John is not only an expert in computing (his degrees are in computer cpu, and systems design), but he is a heavy Mac user for a ways back. His articles are always goo. Also, check out the article by Gruber (and join his site!) he refers to. I agree with what he says here.

http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/4/8/3524

Quote:
Consumers don't compete for developers. It's the other way around. Any developer who wants any significant presence among Mac users needs to release an OS X version. That is never going to change, and any developer who thinks that will change, might as well just write off all their Mac business because some other developer will come along and take advantage of the fact that they have just left the door wide open for competitors.

BINGO.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #416 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
Apple's lack of advertisement tells me they aren't really all that interested in taking on Dell or MS directly. They are pretty satisfied with the momentum of their user base and their current growth.

Sometimes I wonder if apple DOESN'T WANT a large uprising in users. Perhaps they couldn't handle the support? Maybe this was part of the reason they moved to india for tech support? I don't know... just something I was thinking. But what would happen if their userbase grew by 100% in 6 months. That could prove to be a headache no? Trying to keep up with hardware sales, trying to keep up with support... *shrugs*.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #417 of 511
Yes the Daring Fireball article goes along with what I was thinking.

He says that Apple may only have 2% of the market but its has 2% of the best part of the market. Meaning these people are educated and somewhat computer savvy. These people wanted a Mac and chose to use it.

I know it sounds elitist but it doesn't seem Apple wants to spend advertising money and energy to attract the less educated and less computer savvy.
post #418 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
I'm sure a lot is riding on Vista for them. They need it to be another Windows 95. MS stock has been pretty stagnant and they need a hit.

I read MS expects (or hopes) to sell 400 million copies of Vista in the first 18 months. Many analysts don't expect business to heavily adopt Vista for a couple years. The general consumer base doesn't even know it exist. With a likely price tag of $150 to $300 most people in the general public are likely to be rather apathetic when its shipped.

So $500 million will be spent to prime excitement and sales. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Apple's lack of advertisement tells me they aren't really all that interested in taking on Dell or MS directly. They are pretty satisfied with the momentum of their user base and their current growth.

The first thing to remember is that Vista WILL be a success. Most of the 250 million computers shipped next year will come with Vista installed. We can't get away from that. Business will eventually move over as well.

Apple can't afford to be satisfied.
post #419 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
Yes the Daring Fireball article goes along with what I was thinking.

He says that Apple may only have 2% of the market but its has 2% of the best part of the market. Meaning these people are educated and somewhat computer savvy. These people wanted a Mac and chose to use it.

I know it sounds elitist but it doesn't seem Apple wants to spend advertising money and energy to attract the less educated and less computer savvy.

Huh? I think Apple is in the business of business. They would love any sales. And either way more sales also means more developers (= more apps to choose from for the current Mac users)
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #420 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Huh? I think Apple is in the business of business. They would love any sales. And either way more sales also means more developers (= more apps to choose from for the current Mac users)

Yup!

One thing I find myself scratching my head about, is Mac users saying that Apple doesn't need a greater marketshare. That's nonsense. Apple MUST have a greater marketshare.

When Apple came out with the (then) new G5 PM's, one guy in my usergroup had just bought a 1.6GHZ. I said that I hoped that the increased performance of these machines would lead to adoption by pc users, and so increase Apple's marketshare.

His response was that he didn't care, and that it didn't matter to him if Apple;'s marketshare went down even further, as long as Apple kept making "great machines".

I'm always amazed that people who have never had experience in business have so little understanding of the real world.
post #421 of 511
Apple's marketshare does need to get bigger; but not too big. Around 20-25% would be the perfect spot between Windows, Linux + Others covering the rest of the market. You don't want dominant status anyway; you stagnate a lot.

Just look at Windows.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #422 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Apple's marketshare does need to get bigger; but not too big. Around 20-25% would be the perfect spot between Windows, Linux + Others covering the rest of the market. You don't want dominant status anyway; you stagnate a lot.

Just look at Windows.

I've wondered about that myself.

I'm not sure that Apple could get to that number, but if they did, I think that momentum would carry them much further.
post #423 of 511
Something's just occured to me about the market share issue. The dual booters will be an overlapping market share. They will account for both sectors, and so an increasing Apple market share, will not necessarily affect Microsoft for the worse. It all depends on whether they decide to stay with one or the other. If Boot Camp is popular, then initially both Apple and Microsoft will win. But the users may start to favour one over the other and eventually just boot into one. This goes for the emulation software, and owners of both platforms on multiple computers.
"If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything" Robert Zemeckis/Bob Gale/Robert_E._Lee
Reply
"If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything" Robert Zemeckis/Bob Gale/Robert_E._Lee
Reply
post #424 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Mobius
Something's just occured to me about the market share issue. The dual booters will be an overlapping market share. They will account for both sectors, and so an increasing Apple market share, will not necessarily affect Microsoft for the worse. It all depends on whether they decide to stay with one or the other. If Boot Camp is popular, then initially both Apple and Microsoft will win. But the users may start to favour one over the other and eventually just boot into one. This goes for the emulation software, and owners of both platforms on multiple computers.

Yes. That's why MS is pubicly, at least. making happy noises.
post #425 of 511
Quote:
One thing I find myself scratching my head about, is Mac users saying that Apple doesn't need a greater marketshare.

That's not what I said.

Quote:
They are pretty satisfied with the momentum of their user base and their current growth.

Is what I said, momentum and GROWTH being the optimum words.

At this point Apple's main avenue of advertisement is their avid user base. Because Apple does little more to advertise itself they must be satisfied with the current advertisement.

The number of people who have never bought Macs before are on the rise. Arguable that number could be more if Apple had a big marketing campaign, but they don't, so currently they much be satisfied with this level of growth.

Quote:
I think Apple is in the business of business. They would love any sales.

.

Of course but not all growth is necessarily good growth.

Quote:
Apple's marketshare does need to get bigger; but not too big. Around 20-25% would be the perfect spot

This is what I'm saying.

Quote:
If Boot Camp is popular, then initially both Apple and Microsoft will win. But the users may start to favour one over the other and eventually just boot into one.

Yes and Apple wants OS X favored. So they must be confident 10.5 is much better than Vista.
post #426 of 511
As far as market share numbers go, however, a Mac is a Mac is a Mac.

That is, every Mac sale counts towards Apple's market share figures, preferential Windows booting or no, which is a win for the platform (mindshare, stock price and developer enthusiasm wise).

At some point, if people buying Mac hardware to run Windows seem to account for a significant fraction of the total market I suppose those figures will have to be broken out, I reckon by the same process process that is used to determine Linux market share.

What I find unpersuasive, though, is the idea that people are going to be buying MacBook Pros, install XP and somehow be won over, or, even odder, that PC diehards will be buying Mac hardware in droves just for the fit and finish, thereby forever distorting what we consider to be Mac market share.

I think it plenty ironic that before Bootcamp the line was "OS X is a real nice operating system, too bad it's tethered to Apple's absurdly overpriced and difficult to upgrade hardware" and now I see the argument being made (not here so much, mostly over at Ars) that "Apple sure does make sweet hardware, thank god I can finally run something other than that stupid eye candy OS X on it".
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #427 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
I think it plenty ironic that before Bootcamp the line was "OS X is a real nice operating system, too bad it's tethered to Apple's absurdly overpriced and difficult to upgrade hardware" and now I see the argument being made (not here so much, mostly over at Ars) that "Apple sure does make sweet hardware, thank god I can finally run something other than that stupid eye candy OS X on it".

Forget ironic... figure out the logic in it....

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #428 of 511
Well, we kind of realized once we saw Half-Life 2 and every other PC game running so flawlessly on the iMac that perhaps the hardware ain't too bad after all.
post #429 of 511
Well, we kind of realized once we saw Half-Life 2 and every other PC game running so flawlessly on the iMac that perhaps the hardware ain't too bad after all.
post #430 of 511
Just saw this latest bit of scare mongering:

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/3864/0/

"According to the Asia Pacific marketing director of McAfee, Allan Bell, although security attacks on Mac OS/X systems would become more prevalent, many Macintosh users are not as vigilant as they should be. Lax security practices on Macintosh machines may enable Windows viruses to incubate on their Macintosh hosts and later infect Windows machines on a network"

You see there is always a reason to keep Macs off the network. This article is written for every IT manager that suddenly is faced with requests to buy new Macs because now they be used with that one piece of PC-only software that has to be available. How do you prevent the invasion of Macs? Call them 'Typhoid Marys' or Trojan horses that go around infecting the rest of the office while the dizzy headed Mac user is happily typing away under MacOS.
post #431 of 511
I see a potential problem here.
As much as I think Boot Camp is going to be great for the Mac intially, getting people who otherwise might not buy a Mac, maybe give one a try, etc.
But... what happens when developers start to say "Hey we don't need to develop a Mac version, people with Mac's, that want to use our program, can just boot into Windows."? There goes the need for the Mac platform... slowly at first, but... well, who knows. Maybe that's why MS is voicing support for Boot Camp.
Just a thought.
To infinity and beyond!
Reply
To infinity and beyond!
Reply
post #432 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
As far as market share numbers go, however, a Mac is a Mac is a Mac.

That is, every Mac sale counts towards Apple's market share figures, preferential Windows booting or no, which is a win for the platform (mindshare, stock price and developer enthusiasm wise).

At some point, if people buying Mac hardware to run Windows seem to account for a significant fraction of the total market I suppose those figures will have to be broken out, I reckon by the same process process that is used to determine Linux market share.

What I find unpersuasive, though, is the idea that people are going to be buying MacBook Pros, install XP and somehow be won over, or, even odder, that PC diehards will be buying Mac hardware in droves just for the fit and finish, thereby forever distorting what we consider to be Mac market share.

I think it plenty ironic that before Bootcamp the line was "OS X is a real nice operating system, too bad it's tethered to Apple's absurdly overpriced and difficult to upgrade hardware" and now I see the argument being made (not here so much, mostly over at Ars) that "Apple sure does make sweet hardware, thank god I can finally run something other than that stupid eye candy OS X on it".

No one is saying that. Die hard users won't switch. People who want to try X, and are about to buy a new machine anyway, might be persuaded to buy a Mac instead of another PC, if they can also install Windows, as a backup, and if they find X to be not to their liking (it does happen).

Believe it or not, most PC users don't find Apple's hardware to be too expensive. It's the OS they have a problem with. That's understandable. But this gives them an out, if need be.

There are always going to be the PC weenies, just like there are the Mac fanatics, and (my own phrase) the Linux loonies.

It will be very difficult to persuade those to another platform. The excuses range from the software to the hardware.

I wouldn't worry about them.
post #433 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
Just saw this latest bit of scare mongering:

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/3864/0/

"According to the Asia Pacific marketing director of McAfee, Allan Bell, although security attacks on Mac OS/X systems would become more prevalent, many Macintosh users are not as vigilant as they should be. Lax security practices on Macintosh machines may enable Windows viruses to incubate on their Macintosh hosts and later infect Windows machines on a network"

You see there is always a reason to keep Macs off the network. This article is written for every IT manager that suddenly is faced with requests to buy new Macs because now they be used with that one piece of PC-only software that has to be available. How do you prevent the invasion of Macs? Call them 'Typhoid Marys' or Trojan horses that go around infecting the rest of the office while the dizzy headed Mac user is happily typing away under MacOS.

As much as I hate to say it, he's right.

I've been using Norton's Anti-Virus ever the first version came out, many years ago.

The fact that there have been no real, virus's, and just a couple of half hearted trojan horses out for the Mac, doesn't mean we shouldn't use anti-virus software. There were virus's out for system 9 and earlier, and there will be again.

But, my software has caught a number of PC virus's over the years. It's not considered to be polite to pass virus's to your PC using friends and colleagues.

Over a business network, they should enforce virus collection at the front-end, in the firewall and associated software, but for safeties sake, all machines on the network should also have it installed. Just in case some dummy brings a disk in that has a virus on it.

And that does happen.
post #434 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by ikDigital
I see a potential problem here.
As much as I think Boot Camp is going to be great for the Mac intially, getting people who otherwise might not buy a Mac, maybe give one a try, etc.
But... what happens when developers start to say "Hey we don't need to develop a Mac version, people with Mac's, that want to use our program, can just boot into Windows."? There goes the need for the Mac platform... slowly at first, but... well, who knows. Maybe that's why MS is voicing support for Boot Camp.
Just a thought.

I agree that there is some risk. Just posted my thoughts on this in another thread, but the bottom line is that I think the dual boot option provides enough of a penalty that MacOS specific software has a clear advantage. You can run a PC game by itself just fine, but most other projects that are work related require seemless software interaction under one OS, otherwise is can become a royal pain.

Since Adobe is going to require time to get Photoshop over to Macintel, i was wondering if this software was ment as a stopgap when Apple brings out the new PowerMacs -or what ever they will be called- and Photoshop still runs under emulation. Lets people work with Photoshop under the PC environment while they wait another year to get the Mac version.
post #435 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by ikDigital
I see a potential problem here.
As much as I think Boot Camp is going to be great for the Mac intially, getting people who otherwise might not buy a Mac, maybe give one a try, etc.
But... what happens when developers start to say "Hey we don't need to develop a Mac version, people with Mac's, that want to use our program, can just boot into Windows."? There goes the need for the Mac platform... slowly at first, but... well, who knows. Maybe that's why MS is voicing support for Boot Camp.
Just a thought.

Have you been reading anything at all? Did you think that this is a unique thought?

This has been discussed so endlessly, that it's almost too tiring to continue with.
post #436 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
No one is saying that. Die hard users won't switch. People who want to try X, and are about to buy a new machine anyway, might be persuaded to buy a Mac instead of another PC, if they can also install Windows, as a backup, and if they find X to be not to their liking (it does happen).

Believe it or not, most PC users don't find Apple's hardware to be too expensive. It's the OS they have a problem with. That's understandable. But this gives them an out, if need be.

There are always going to be the PC weenies, just like there are the Mac fanatics, and (my own phrase) the Linux loonies.

It will be very difficult to persuade those to another platform. The excuses range from the software to the hardware.

I wouldn't worry about them.

Huh. I guess we inhabit different universes.

In my universe, the constant drumbeat of "Apple hardware is overpriced, I would consider running OS X if they let it run on commodity PC hardware" is practically foundational to the PC/Mac debate. I have literally never participated in a Mac/PC discussion that didn't quickly move to "I can get a Dell with more for less" etc.

I therefore find it amusing to hear the newfound respect for this very same "overpriced" kit now that it can run XP, and deeply ironic to hear (and yes, "some" are saying this) that Apple may have a problem if if They Come for the Hardware but Stay for the Windows.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #437 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Huh. I guess we inhabit different universes.

In my universe, the constant drumbeat of "Apple hardware is overpriced, I would consider running OS X if they let it run on commodity PC hardware" is practically foundational to the PC/Mac debate. I have literally never participated in a Mac/PC discussion that didn't quickly move to "I can get a Dell with more for less" etc.

I therefore find it amusing to hear the newfound respect for this very same "overpriced" kit now that it can run XP, and deeply ironic to hear (and yes, "some" are saying this) that Apple may have a problem if if They Come for the Hardware but Stay for the Windows.

Where do I hear this? On some discussion groups where the anti mac contingent is out and howling.

There are always some. But the majority don't seem to ascribe to it. The view has been changing. I have also found that when in these groups, either on line, or in the flesh, that those most opposed do most of the talking. That can make it seem as though there are more of them than there are.

I find that ever since the Intel machines have come out, even some of those who vowed to never sully their desk with a Mac have suddenly started to consider it. The biggest proplem has been games. Now, not so much.
post #438 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Ouch. Quake[4] and HalfLife[2] as "tripe" That's harsh. I like FPS because it's action, there's a plot, it doesn't require much thinking, and you get to kill lots of stuff and let all that rage out. Plus its nice to see how the developers are pushing 3d graphics to their limit. Plus other elements like physics, weapon design, character design, level design...

Well, I suppose it's better that you shoot things and let your rage out in the virtual world. Personally FPS shooters give me the creeps and make me wonder just what goes on in people's heads if they think going around shooting people's heads off with a BFG is anywhere approaching OK. Sure, it's 'not real' but I've no idea why people would want to do it in the pretend world. Are they all frustrated they can't do it in the real world? Perhaps they should go see a shrink.

Perhaps I'm missing the plot in these FPS games too but isn't it usually along the lines of installation/planet overrun by virus/aliens/monsters. You and your team of soldiers/commandos/military types have to go in and kill everything (that moves). Occasionally there will be some 'puzzle' element involving colour coded keys/pushing levers.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Just sooo lame compared to the ideas Molyneux came up with at Bullfrog/Lionhead or pretty much anything from Williams. But then I think games peaked at Defender, Gravitar and Tempest and its been downhill since with only a few blips of originality - Marble Madness, Populous, Archon, Elite, Lemmings, Worms.

Anyway, we're straying off the subject. It's a pity that 3D FPSs are such a force in gaming that any game developer coming up with a novel non-3D idea has such a time getting it to market. I was playing Enigmo2 a few days ago which has gone all 3D - Sorry, Enigmo1 was much better.
post #439 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I've wondered about that myself.

I'm not sure that Apple could get to that number, but if they did, I think that momentum would carry them much further.

To get to 25% market share they'd also have to be the largest computer manufacturer on the planet. I guess at some point though - 15%? they might be happy enough to licence to other manufacturers though.
post #440 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Well, I suppose it's better that you shoot things and let your rage out in the virtual world. Personally FPS shooters give me the creeps and make me wonder just what goes on in people's heads if they think going around shooting people's heads off with a BFG is anywhere approaching OK. Sure, it's 'not real' but I've no idea why people would want to do it in the pretend world. Are they all frustrated they can't do it in the real world? Perhaps they should go see a shrink.

Perhaps I'm missing the plot in these FPS games too but isn't it usually along the lines of installation/planet overrun by virus/aliens/monsters. You and your team of soldiers/commandos/military types have to go in and kill everything (that moves). Occasionally there will be some 'puzzle' element involving colour coded keys/pushing levers.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Just sooo lame compared to the ideas Molyneux came up with at Bullfrog/Lionhead or pretty much anything from Williams. But then I think games peaked at Defender, Gravitar and Tempest and its been downhill since with only a few blips of originality - Marble Madness, Populous, Archon, Elite, Lemmings, Worms.

Anyway, we're straying off the subject. It's a pity that 3D FPSs are such a force in gaming that any game developer coming up with a novel non-3D idea has such a time getting it to market. I was playing Enigmo2 a few days ago which has gone all 3D - Sorry, Enigmo1 was much better.

I have to agree with you 100% on this.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's "Boot Camp" beta runs Windows XP on Macs