A 150% price increase is still a very good reason not to switch for most Windows users. If I was Bill Gates I'd be popping open the champaign right now, their 95% market share will get closer to 100%, with 5% having both OS's.
And how are those Apple mice going to work with Windows XP, anyway?
well, if you want OS X and NEED windows, you save 40% over buying a mac and a PC:
150% (mac cost)
-------------------------------- = 60%
100% (PC cost) + 150% (mac cost)
That still makes "switching" easier for some people... by a lot.
BTW, Apple's mouse is now 2+ button and works in xp..
well, if you want OS X and NEED windows, you save 40% over buying a mac and a PC:
150% (mac cost)
-------------------------------- = 60%
100% (PC cost) + 150% (mac cost)
That still makes "switching" easier for some people... by a lot.
BTW, Apple's mouse is now 2+ button and works in xp..
You're right, its definetly a godsend for anyone who needs both. What if you could put one operating system into a standby or hibernation mood when you switch?
I would say the usefulness of this is directly proportional to the speed with which you can transfer between the two.
I think it would be funny if Apple extends the tone of the Beta announcement throughout their marketing of Bootcamp.
As has been noted, the name is designed to induce visions of grimly enforced discomfort. Then there's the grey scale announcement page, with only a tiny blue Mac icon to relive the gloom. Plus, the recasting of the Windows logo into something that looks like the symbol for toxic waste as marketed by Enron. Not to mention the overt dissing of Windows in the features list.
I want to see the TV ad: gaunt, grey wretch in grey wretched cubicle in the middle of an apocalyptic wasteland. Moaning wind. The sun is obscured by the smoke of a thousand fires.
V.O. (grim monotone): "Bootcamp. Run Windows if you must. Asshole."
I'm not sure what work u do... but think about 3d modelers and engineers. Other things need to be accessed like the graphics card, the sound card, the ram, not just the cpu... yes the cpu may be 20% slower, but everything else will be slower as well... which adds up ...
*IS HERE TO DEFEND DUAL BOOTING* *makes a stand*
I'm sorry, maybe I'm stupid, but how does virtualization prevent dual booting? There's no need to "defend" dual booting against the virtualization crowd. You HAVE dual booting. It's not like the introduction of virtualization will suddenly make the possibility of dual booting disappear...especially considering Apple's specific comments about Boot Camp being integrated into 10.5. So why is there any arguement about this?
Possible reason above - no sense in doing so when you're intending it to be a migration path, not a cross-compatibility tool.
What if they have and Microsoft refused?
Is that so unlikely?
What about WindowsMedia: what if Apple asked and Microsoft refused to license? We don't know. We can merely speculate on whether it's in Apple's interest or not.
There was a way of non-destructively resizing HFS+ partitions but it was necessary to turn journaling off first. It seems that Apple have managed to non-destructively resize HFS+ partitions without turning journaling off which isn't such an amazing feat given Apple's resources.
There are already a few non-destructive volume resizing utilities for OS X, e.g. iPartition, which I used on a couple systems last week.
Virtualization would be great. Dual booting is of limited use.
However - being able to "fast switch" from Mac to Windows would be very useful (even if it only runs one OS at a time).
If you can safe sleep OS X and hibernate XP switching between the isn't quite as painful as cold booting every time since you can resume the previous login environment under each OS. Not as slick as "Fast OS Switching" with virtualization, but until that's possible it's more convenient than fully rebooting.
Hmm, the PowerMac G5 just took a deep dive in value. I was thinking of grabbing one at a bargain when the Mactel desktops came out (I like some of my old OS9 applications), but the prospect of being able to run Windows on a new Mactel desktop is more appealing.
They were already stalled, but PowerMac G5 sales just fell off a cliff.
I'm quite glad I sold my Powermac recently, I knew something would make it lose value in the near future.
Well, it's clear it's a beta. I downloaded it, installed it and wanted to run it. The first thing it said was: "upgrade your firmware". No link, no nothing. OK. So now I have to hunt for firmware upgrades.
So as I'm doing that, I find the firmware for Mac mini's (I have the Core Duo version). I download it, try to install it and it tells me 'This firmware cannot be upgraded on this computer'. Why? It's the only firmware upgrade for Intel Mac mini's and it's for the 'early 2006' Mac mini's.
You can't install XP because you need to upgrade your firmware, but you can't upgrade your firmware because your computer already has something that's newer than the one offered. This is great.
Comments
Originally posted by Jleon
Someone needs to be devil's advocate here:
A 150% price increase is still a very good reason not to switch for most Windows users. If I was Bill Gates I'd be popping open the champaign right now, their 95% market share will get closer to 100%, with 5% having both OS's.
And how are those Apple mice going to work with Windows XP, anyway?
well, if you want OS X and NEED windows, you save 40% over buying a mac and a PC:
150% (mac cost)
-------------------------------- = 60%
100% (PC cost) + 150% (mac cost)
That still makes "switching" easier for some people... by a lot.
BTW, Apple's mouse is now 2+ button and works in xp..
Originally posted by slughead
well, if you want OS X and NEED windows, you save 40% over buying a mac and a PC:
150% (mac cost)
-------------------------------- = 60%
100% (PC cost) + 150% (mac cost)
That still makes "switching" easier for some people... by a lot.
BTW, Apple's mouse is now 2+ button and works in xp..
You're right, its definetly a godsend for anyone who needs both. What if you could put one operating system into a standby or hibernation mood when you switch?
I would say the usefulness of this is directly proportional to the speed with which you can transfer between the two.
Originally posted by Jleon
I would say the usefulness of this is directly proportional to the speed with which you can transfer between the two.
Exactly. Which is why I don't think you'll see Apple provide an easier way to do so.
Why would they want you to switch *BACK* to Windows?
Don't fool yourself, this is a one-way migration tool masquerading as a dual-boot system.
As has been noted, the name is designed to induce visions of grimly enforced discomfort. Then there's the grey scale announcement page, with only a tiny blue Mac icon to relive the gloom. Plus, the recasting of the Windows logo into something that looks like the symbol for toxic waste as marketed by Enron. Not to mention the overt dissing of Windows in the features list.
I want to see the TV ad: gaunt, grey wretch in grey wretched cubicle in the middle of an apocalyptic wasteland. Moaning wind. The sun is obscured by the smoke of a thousand fires.
V.O. (grim monotone): "Bootcamp. Run Windows if you must. Asshole."
Originally posted by emig647
I'm not sure what work u do... but think about 3d modelers and engineers. Other things need to be accessed like the graphics card, the sound card, the ram, not just the cpu... yes the cpu may be 20% slower, but everything else will be slower as well... which adds up
*IS HERE TO DEFEND DUAL BOOTING* *makes a stand*
I'm sorry, maybe I'm stupid, but how does virtualization prevent dual booting? There's no need to "defend" dual booting against the virtualization crowd. You HAVE dual booting. It's not like the introduction of virtualization will suddenly make the possibility of dual booting disappear...especially considering Apple's specific comments about Boot Camp being integrated into 10.5. So why is there any arguement about this?
Originally posted by Kickaha
You're right, they could.
So why haven't they?
Possible reason above - no sense in doing so when you're intending it to be a migration path, not a cross-compatibility tool.
What if they have and Microsoft refused?
Is that so unlikely?
What about WindowsMedia: what if Apple asked and Microsoft refused to license? We don't know. We can merely speculate on whether it's in Apple's interest or not.
Originally posted by dr_gonzo
There was a way of non-destructively resizing HFS+ partitions but it was necessary to turn journaling off first. It seems that Apple have managed to non-destructively resize HFS+ partitions without turning journaling off which isn't such an amazing feat given Apple's resources.
There are already a few non-destructive volume resizing utilities for OS X, e.g. iPartition, which I used on a couple systems last week.
Originally posted by Kickaha
2) The URL you *gave* looks interesting, but doesn't seem to resolve to a page on that topic.
If you're referring to the patent, a simple Google search yields decent results.
The problem with the URL appears to be stupidity of this forum software. (I ran into it myself just a few days ago.)
1) Everyone who has tried has had their computer blow up and is thus unable to communicate with us,
or 2) Anyone who has done it is just doing too many cool things right now to get back to us about it.
Originally posted by Chucker
[B]If you're referring to the patent, a simple Google search yields decent results.
Well, it does if resistant is spelled right.
But that still doesn't answer what I asked mel - what the relevance of this to BootCamp is, in his mind.
Originally posted by JohnnySmith
That's It???? Where are the Intel iBooks, the updated iPods, and all the other actual physical products that have been rumored about?
Apple releases a software update that people have already done for over a month on their own, and Apple's stock goes up 5???
Happy Birthday Apple. For your 30 year party you decide to have Windows run on a Mac? Whoopity-Doo. Just what I always wanted.
Nice way to give the finger to your dedicated base... once again.
Calm down sparky.
1. It is only April 4th. Only a 1/4 through the year. More to come.
2. Who said they HAVE to do anything for their 30th birthday?
3. The stock jump is because people think this is something that will help Apple sell more Macs.
4. How, exactly, is this a "way to give the finger to your dedicated base"?
Originally posted by addabox
V.O. (grim monotone): "Bootcamp. Run Windows if you must. Asshole."
Thank you.
No, really...THANK YOU. That made me laugh out loud!
Originally posted by GregAlexander
Virtualization would be great. Dual booting is of limited use.
However - being able to "fast switch" from Mac to Windows would be very useful (even if it only runs one OS at a time).
If you can safe sleep OS X and hibernate XP switching between the isn't quite as painful as cold booting every time since you can resume the previous login environment under each OS. Not as slick as "Fast OS Switching" with virtualization, but until that's possible it's more convenient than fully rebooting.
Originally posted by baygbm
Hmm, the PowerMac G5 just took a deep dive in value. I was thinking of grabbing one at a bargain when the Mactel desktops came out (I like some of my old OS9 applications), but the prospect of being able to run Windows on a new Mactel desktop is more appealing.
They were already stalled, but PowerMac G5 sales just fell off a cliff.
I'm quite glad I sold my Powermac recently, I knew something would make it lose value in the near future.
So as I'm doing that, I find the firmware for Mac mini's (I have the Core Duo version). I download it, try to install it and it tells me 'This firmware cannot be upgraded on this computer'. Why? It's the only firmware upgrade for Intel Mac mini's and it's for the 'early 2006' Mac mini's.
You can't install XP because you need to upgrade your firmware, but you can't upgrade your firmware because your computer already has something that's newer than the one offered. This is great.
Don't fool yourself, this is a one-way migration tool masquerading as a dual-boot system.
This makes sense. Apple may only do the least necessary to enabled running XP. There is little incentive to integrate OS X and XP workflow together.
Apple may leave it to others to take advantage of virtualization.