I think we can be pretty certain that when Stevie says boot camp will be "included" in Leopard, it's not going to be in the form that the beta is in. Would Apple release a "feature" that has already been available for months as a selling point to an operating system?? No, I think something like virtualization is much more likely or some other cool use of the boot camp technology. I'm sure we'll all be surprised come November.
As for iPickles trolling, let me sum up what everyone has said so far: WTF???
The trippling of market share predicted here will simply not happen if people have to go out, buy Windoze, and install it on their own. There will be some switchers, sure, but if Apple wants to achieve a market share of 12 percent (or even 10 percent), they HAVE to do the following things:
1) Offer Windows pre-installed as a BTO option (in addition to OS X, never as a replacement).
2) Have a few display Macs in their retail stores that are running Windows. (Hopefully near the back .
AFA virtualization goes, the thing to keep in mind is this: From our perspective (ie Mac enthusiasts), the ideal situation would be the ability to run Windows applications from inside Leopard. Best of both worlds: OS X, but you can run that one app you absoutely need, without even worrying about the Windows GUI mishagoss. BUT, from the point of view of the average switcher, that is not what they (think they) want. They want to be able to run Windows--exactly like it runs on a Dell--and they won't switch until they can. The hope, of course, is that once they've got the box home, they'll boot in OS X and be won over, but if it happens, it'll happen in that order: buy first, be won over to OS X second.
If the Leopard version of virtualization is closer to the seamless appearance of Windows running on your screen, it'll work to lure folks over. If the screen still looks Mac-ish when VirtualBootPCWindowsCamp is running, that'll be an obstacle to growing market share.
The trippling of market share predicted here will simply not happen if people have to go out, buy Windoze, and install it on their own. There will be some switchers, sure, but if Apple wants to achieve a market share of 12 percent (or even 10 percent), they HAVE to do the following things:
1) Offer Windows pre-installed as a BTO option (in addition to OS X, never as a replacement).
2) Have a few display Macs in their retail stores that are running Windows. (Hopefully near the back .
AFA virtualization goes, the thing to keep in mind is this: From our perspective (ie Mac enthusiasts), the ideal situation would be the ability to run Windows applications from inside Leopard. Best of both worlds: OS X, but you can run that one app you absoutely need, without even worrying about the Windows GUI mishagoss. BUT, from the point of view of the average switcher, that is not what they (think they) want. They want to be able to run Windows--exactly like it runs on a Dell--and they won't switch until they can. The hope, of course, is that once they've got the box home, they'll boot in OS X and be won over, but if it happens, it'll happen in that order: buy first, be won over to OS X second.
If the Leopard version of virtualization is closer to the seamless appearance of Windows running on your screen, it'll work to lure folks over. If the screen still looks Mac-ish when VirtualBootPCWindowsCamp is running, that'll be an obstacle to growing market share.
I don't think that it's right to say that they "have to" have Windows as a BTO. It could do more harm than good. It would be more important to get OS X out there.
Surely the point is it don't matter what you (core martket) think about Apple licensing Windows or not. What you going to do? Not buy Apple product?.
That's true--but that doesn't mean there aren't alternatives like Linux out there that Mac users could turn to if sufficiently disturbed by the change. I guess I'm thinking along the lines of the "woe is me" posting that was prevalent for quite a while after the Intel switch was announced, along with several mentions of Linux as a viable option.
In any case, it's never good to bite the hand that feeds you.
I think we can be pretty certain that when Stevie says boot camp will be "included" in Leopard, it's not going to be in the form that the beta is in. Would Apple release a "feature" that has already been available for months as a selling point to an operating system?? No, I think something like virtualization is much more likely or some other cool use of the boot camp technology. I'm sure we'll all be surprised come November.
Not necessarily. For example, iChat AV was released in beta before 10.3, and then was released in final form as part of 10.3.
I think Bootcamp will be essentially the same in 10.5 as it is now, with some improvements of course.
AFA virtualization goes, the thing to keep in mind is this: From our perspective (ie Mac enthusiasts), the ideal situation would be the ability to run Windows applications from inside Leopard. Best of both worlds: OS X, but you can run that one app you absoutely need, without even worrying about the Windows GUI mishagoss. BUT, from the point of view of the average switcher, that is not what they (think they) want. They want to be able to run Windows--exactly like it runs on a Dell--and they won't switch until they can.
I don't know about that. If someone is that adamant about running windows that way thay probably aren't looking at macs anyway. IMO the 'potential switcher' is someone uses windows at work or for a specific app who is pretty tech savy and would like to try a mac but needs the ability to run windows occasionaly. VT is perfect for those individuals.
BootCamp is necessary to obtain the full power of the cpu's and graphics cards. Virtualization is necessary for ease of use and moving, and working with, files across two programs on each OS.
I think Bootcamp will be essentially the same in 10.5 as it is now, with some improvements of course.
Like drivers for iSight.
I don't think a BTO option is necessary. AS long as they know its possible to install windows, they're fine with it. Most of these people are switchers who already have XP, they just need to request the install cd from whoever they bought the computer from for like 10 bucks.
I have a friend for instance who I'm trying hard to convince to buy a MacBook, it even comes with a free 2GB nano for crying out loud! (She's a student) But she's still not convinced though. She knows how to use Windows and she doesn't want to mess with OSX, I think she's just plain lazy. People have so many stupid misconceptions about macs (they're expensive, they're for "fun" not important things, no software options for them, etc.) It drives me nuts!
Basically the point is that if you sold HER a mac with windows already installed on it, she would always boot up in that and never use OS X, and that's bad for Apple. But if you make it a little harder to get windows on there, she'll be forced to enjoy OSX first and be sold on it (or not, she's pretty adamant in her ignorant opinions about OS X)
BTW - Why does boot campt default to Windows when restarting? It drives me nuts! I want to hold the option key ONLY when I want to start up in Windows. As it is, I have to hold it every time I restart and then select OS X, otherwise I get that horrible windows black screen with the ugly text and the pixely logo.
BootCamp is necessary to obtain the full power of the cpu's and graphics cards. Virtualization is necessary for ease of use and moving, and working with, files across two programs on each OS.
Neither one alone is ideal.
If you're not a gamer I don't see the advantage. I guess if you prefer to do PS in windows.
I don't think a BTO option is necessary. AS long as they know its possible to install windows, they're fine with it. Most of these people are switchers who already have XP, they just need to request the install cd from whoever they bought the computer from for like 10 bucks.
I have a friend for instance who I'm trying hard to convince to buy a MacBook, it even comes with a free 2GB nano for crying out loud! (She's a student) But she's still not convinced though. She knows how to use Windows and she doesn't want to mess with OSX, I think she's just plain lazy. People have so many stupid misconceptions about macs (they're expensive, they're for "fun" not important things, no software options for them, etc.) It drives me nuts!
Basically the point is that if you sold HER a mac with windows already installed on it, she would always boot up in that and never use OS X, and that's bad for Apple. But if you make it a little harder to get windows on there, she'll be forced to enjoy OSX first and be sold on it (or not, she's pretty adamant in her ignorant opinions about OS X)
BTW - Why does boot campt default to Windows when restarting? It drives me nuts! I want to hold the option key ONLY when I want to start up in Windows. As it is, I have to hold it every time I restart and then select OS X, otherwise I get that horrible windows black screen with the ugly text and the pixely logo.
One problem with the Windows license is that it ties the OS to one machine, and one machine only. You can't install it on another and expect it to work for any time, unless, of course, you use one of the (illegal) workarounds that have been developed by hackers. No one here would ever do such a thing.
Basically the point is that if you sold HER a mac with windows already installed on it, she would always boot up in that and never use OS X, and that's bad for Apple.
The advantage of VT is that you start in the OSX environment.
If you're not a gamer I don't see the advantage. I guess if you prefer to do PS in windows.
Well, gaming is a pretty big proposition in the PC world. CAD, and other 3D programs not available on the Mac would also need the power. As you say, PS would also, at least until the CS3 suite is released. There are probably others as well.
Well, gaming is a pretty big proposition in the PC world. CAD, and other 3D programs not available on the Mac would also need the power. As you say, PS would also, at least until the CS3 suite is released. There are probably others as well.
I use PS in OS X, it's not even an option to use it in windows. I don't have a PC license, if I did, I wouldn't have any of the other programs that I use PS WITH!! Not to mention the hassle of having to restart in windows.
I use PS in OS X, it's not even an option to use it in windows. I don't have a PC license, if I did, I wouldn't have any of the other programs that I use PS WITH!! Not to mention the hassle of having to restart in windows.
That's you. You're looking at it from a Mac users viewpoint. According to what you have just said, neither method would be of use to you. So why just respond to me, rather than to the group as a whole?
That isn't to say that others who HAVE a PC version don't have the CS2 suite, and other plug-ins that go with it, possibly Quark as well. Hell, maybe they are still using Ventura!
The problem is that testimonials are from a small select group, and may not reflect the interests of a much larger number of people.
I think that we are talking mostly about PC people moving over to the Mac who DO have programs.
But, remember that I said that we should have both options. I'm not eliminating one or the other. Everyone's needs should be accommodated.
That's you. You're looking at it from a Mac users viewpoint. According to what you have just said, neither method would be of use to you. So why just respond to me, rather than to the group as a whole?
Sorry, bad use of the reply button.
I see your point and agree. Exisiting PC licensers can use OSX till they upgrade, and then they can get the mac version. CS2 to CS3 is a perfect example.
Taking that situation, If you're talking about somebody who is deep into the windows world and has a lot of software, that's the only way Apple's going to pull them over into the Mac World. Say to them, "it's ok, nothing will change but your computer, and you can slowly migrate over to OS X at your own pace."
Also, for somebody that deep into windows, I doubt virtualization is going to be very attractive. Virtualization is good only if its use is limited to particular tasks. Operating completely in it would be a headache, unless someone comes out with a killer virtualization solution (not like parallels). But I don't see how that's possible. Win Apps are extremely unlike OS X apps, you can't get Rosetta type virtualization with windows Apps.
Also, for somebody that deep into windows, I doubt virtualization is going to be very attractive. Virtualization is good only if its use is limited to particular tasks. Operating completely in it would be a headache, unless someone comes out with a killer virtualization solution (not like parallels). But I don't see how that's possible. Win Apps are extremely unlike OS X apps, you can't get Rosetta type virtualization with windows Apps.
My understanding is that virtualization is going to be hardware-based in Merom (and I'm sure Conroe), so that might provide significant improvements. How exactly does the Parallels solution work?
BTW - Why does boot campt default to Windows when restarting? It drives me nuts! I want to hold the option key ONLY when I want to start up in Windows. As it is, I have to hold it every time I restart and then select OS X, otherwise I get that horrible windows black screen with the ugly text and the pixely logo.
Have you set the startup disk from system preferences?
My understanding is that virtualization is going to be hardware-based in Merom (and I'm sure Conroe), so that might provide significant improvements. How exactly does the Parallels solution work?
Virtualization, by its very nature, can't ever use all of the computers power. Part of the computer is reserved for each OS. There is no virtualization for graphics cards either. It is done in software, the same way it is done now in VPC, so it is slow, no acceleration.
I for one do not wnat to see Windows ever bundled in anyway - even a BTO option. That's the reason I switched from PCs. Windows is unstable and gets noticably slower after 3 months and Linux just isn't ready IMO to be used every day. OS X on the other hand, is perfect IMO. Stable, pretty, and I don't have to reformat and reinstall every 3 months. In fact, I'm on over a year on my Tiger installation and it still feels new.
Comments
As for iPickles trolling, let me sum up what everyone has said so far: WTF???
1) Offer Windows pre-installed as a BTO option (in addition to OS X, never as a replacement).
2) Have a few display Macs in their retail stores that are running Windows. (Hopefully near the back
AFA virtualization goes, the thing to keep in mind is this: From our perspective (ie Mac enthusiasts), the ideal situation would be the ability to run Windows applications from inside Leopard. Best of both worlds: OS X, but you can run that one app you absoutely need, without even worrying about the Windows GUI mishagoss. BUT, from the point of view of the average switcher, that is not what they (think they) want. They want to be able to run Windows--exactly like it runs on a Dell--and they won't switch until they can. The hope, of course, is that once they've got the box home, they'll boot in OS X and be won over, but if it happens, it'll happen in that order: buy first, be won over to OS X second.
If the Leopard version of virtualization is closer to the seamless appearance of Windows running on your screen, it'll work to lure folks over. If the screen still looks Mac-ish when VirtualBootPCWindowsCamp is running, that'll be an obstacle to growing market share.
Originally posted by Feste
The trippling of market share predicted here will simply not happen if people have to go out, buy Windoze, and install it on their own. There will be some switchers, sure, but if Apple wants to achieve a market share of 12 percent (or even 10 percent), they HAVE to do the following things:
1) Offer Windows pre-installed as a BTO option (in addition to OS X, never as a replacement).
2) Have a few display Macs in their retail stores that are running Windows. (Hopefully near the back
AFA virtualization goes, the thing to keep in mind is this: From our perspective (ie Mac enthusiasts), the ideal situation would be the ability to run Windows applications from inside Leopard. Best of both worlds: OS X, but you can run that one app you absoutely need, without even worrying about the Windows GUI mishagoss. BUT, from the point of view of the average switcher, that is not what they (think they) want. They want to be able to run Windows--exactly like it runs on a Dell--and they won't switch until they can. The hope, of course, is that once they've got the box home, they'll boot in OS X and be won over, but if it happens, it'll happen in that order: buy first, be won over to OS X second.
If the Leopard version of virtualization is closer to the seamless appearance of Windows running on your screen, it'll work to lure folks over. If the screen still looks Mac-ish when VirtualBootPCWindowsCamp is running, that'll be an obstacle to growing market share.
I don't think that it's right to say that they "have to" have Windows as a BTO. It could do more harm than good. It would be more important to get OS X out there.
The rest of the argument, yes.
Originally posted by OfficerDigby
Surely the point is it don't matter what you (core martket) think about Apple licensing Windows or not. What you going to do? Not buy Apple product?.
That's true--but that doesn't mean there aren't alternatives like Linux out there that Mac users could turn to if sufficiently disturbed by the change. I guess I'm thinking along the lines of the "woe is me" posting that was prevalent for quite a while after the Intel switch was announced, along with several mentions of Linux as a viable option.
In any case, it's never good to bite the hand that feeds you.
Originally posted by melgross
It could do more harm than good.
My point in asking the question exactly.
By the way, I'm surprised you guys haven't come up with the fact that iPickle06 is clearly John Dvorak.
Originally posted by meelash
I think we can be pretty certain that when Stevie says boot camp will be "included" in Leopard, it's not going to be in the form that the beta is in. Would Apple release a "feature" that has already been available for months as a selling point to an operating system?? No, I think something like virtualization is much more likely or some other cool use of the boot camp technology. I'm sure we'll all be surprised come November.
Not necessarily. For example, iChat AV was released in beta before 10.3, and then was released in final form as part of 10.3.
I think Bootcamp will be essentially the same in 10.5 as it is now, with some improvements of course.
Originally posted by Feste
AFA virtualization goes, the thing to keep in mind is this: From our perspective (ie Mac enthusiasts), the ideal situation would be the ability to run Windows applications from inside Leopard. Best of both worlds: OS X, but you can run that one app you absoutely need, without even worrying about the Windows GUI mishagoss. BUT, from the point of view of the average switcher, that is not what they (think they) want. They want to be able to run Windows--exactly like it runs on a Dell--and they won't switch until they can.
I don't know about that. If someone is that adamant about running windows that way thay probably aren't looking at macs anyway. IMO the 'potential switcher' is someone uses windows at work or for a specific app who is pretty tech savy and would like to try a mac but needs the ability to run windows occasionaly. VT is perfect for those individuals.
BootCamp is necessary to obtain the full power of the cpu's and graphics cards. Virtualization is necessary for ease of use and moving, and working with, files across two programs on each OS.
Neither one alone is ideal.
Originally posted by BRussell
I think Bootcamp will be essentially the same in 10.5 as it is now, with some improvements of course.
Like drivers for iSight.
I don't think a BTO option is necessary. AS long as they know its possible to install windows, they're fine with it. Most of these people are switchers who already have XP, they just need to request the install cd from whoever they bought the computer from for like 10 bucks.
I have a friend for instance who I'm trying hard to convince to buy a MacBook, it even comes with a free 2GB nano for crying out loud! (She's a student) But she's still not convinced though. She knows how to use Windows and she doesn't want to mess with OSX, I think she's just plain lazy. People have so many stupid misconceptions about macs (they're expensive, they're for "fun" not important things, no software options for them, etc.) It drives me nuts!
Basically the point is that if you sold HER a mac with windows already installed on it, she would always boot up in that and never use OS X, and that's bad for Apple. But if you make it a little harder to get windows on there, she'll be forced to enjoy OSX first and be sold on it (or not, she's pretty adamant in her ignorant opinions about OS X)
BTW - Why does boot campt default to Windows when restarting? It drives me nuts! I want to hold the option key ONLY when I want to start up in Windows. As it is, I have to hold it every time I restart and then select OS X, otherwise I get that horrible windows black screen with the ugly text and the pixely logo.
Originally posted by melgross
Both ways are necessary.
BootCamp is necessary to obtain the full power of the cpu's and graphics cards. Virtualization is necessary for ease of use and moving, and working with, files across two programs on each OS.
Neither one alone is ideal.
If you're not a gamer I don't see the advantage. I guess if you prefer to do PS in windows.
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
Like drivers for iSight.
I don't think a BTO option is necessary. AS long as they know its possible to install windows, they're fine with it. Most of these people are switchers who already have XP, they just need to request the install cd from whoever they bought the computer from for like 10 bucks.
I have a friend for instance who I'm trying hard to convince to buy a MacBook, it even comes with a free 2GB nano for crying out loud! (She's a student) But she's still not convinced though. She knows how to use Windows and she doesn't want to mess with OSX, I think she's just plain lazy. People have so many stupid misconceptions about macs (they're expensive, they're for "fun" not important things, no software options for them, etc.) It drives me nuts!
Basically the point is that if you sold HER a mac with windows already installed on it, she would always boot up in that and never use OS X, and that's bad for Apple. But if you make it a little harder to get windows on there, she'll be forced to enjoy OSX first and be sold on it (or not, she's pretty adamant in her ignorant opinions about OS X)
BTW - Why does boot campt default to Windows when restarting? It drives me nuts! I want to hold the option key ONLY when I want to start up in Windows. As it is, I have to hold it every time I restart and then select OS X, otherwise I get that horrible windows black screen with the ugly text and the pixely logo.
One problem with the Windows license is that it ties the OS to one machine, and one machine only. You can't install it on another and expect it to work for any time, unless, of course, you use one of the (illegal) workarounds that have been developed by hackers. No one here would ever do such a thing.
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
Basically the point is that if you sold HER a mac with windows already installed on it, she would always boot up in that and never use OS X, and that's bad for Apple.
The advantage of VT is that you start in the OSX environment.
Originally posted by backtomac
If you're not a gamer I don't see the advantage. I guess if you prefer to do PS in windows.
Well, gaming is a pretty big proposition in the PC world. CAD, and other 3D programs not available on the Mac would also need the power. As you say, PS would also, at least until the CS3 suite is released. There are probably others as well.
Originally posted by melgross
Well, gaming is a pretty big proposition in the PC world. CAD, and other 3D programs not available on the Mac would also need the power. As you say, PS would also, at least until the CS3 suite is released. There are probably others as well.
I use PS in OS X, it's not even an option to use it in windows. I don't have a PC license, if I did, I wouldn't have any of the other programs that I use PS WITH!! Not to mention the hassle of having to restart in windows.
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
I use PS in OS X, it's not even an option to use it in windows. I don't have a PC license, if I did, I wouldn't have any of the other programs that I use PS WITH!! Not to mention the hassle of having to restart in windows.
That's you. You're looking at it from a Mac users viewpoint. According to what you have just said, neither method would be of use to you. So why just respond to me, rather than to the group as a whole?
That isn't to say that others who HAVE a PC version don't have the CS2 suite, and other plug-ins that go with it, possibly Quark as well. Hell, maybe they are still using Ventura!
The problem is that testimonials are from a small select group, and may not reflect the interests of a much larger number of people.
I think that we are talking mostly about PC people moving over to the Mac who DO have programs.
But, remember that I said that we should have both options. I'm not eliminating one or the other. Everyone's needs should be accommodated.
Originally posted by melgross
That's you. You're looking at it from a Mac users viewpoint. According to what you have just said, neither method would be of use to you. So why just respond to me, rather than to the group as a whole?
Sorry, bad use of the reply button.
I see your point and agree. Exisiting PC licensers can use OSX till they upgrade, and then they can get the mac version. CS2 to CS3 is a perfect example.
Taking that situation, If you're talking about somebody who is deep into the windows world and has a lot of software, that's the only way Apple's going to pull them over into the Mac World. Say to them, "it's ok, nothing will change but your computer, and you can slowly migrate over to OS X at your own pace."
Also, for somebody that deep into windows, I doubt virtualization is going to be very attractive. Virtualization is good only if its use is limited to particular tasks. Operating completely in it would be a headache, unless someone comes out with a killer virtualization solution (not like parallels). But I don't see how that's possible. Win Apps are extremely unlike OS X apps, you can't get Rosetta type virtualization with windows Apps.
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
Also, for somebody that deep into windows, I doubt virtualization is going to be very attractive. Virtualization is good only if its use is limited to particular tasks. Operating completely in it would be a headache, unless someone comes out with a killer virtualization solution (not like parallels). But I don't see how that's possible. Win Apps are extremely unlike OS X apps, you can't get Rosetta type virtualization with windows Apps.
My understanding is that virtualization is going to be hardware-based in Merom (and I'm sure Conroe), so that might provide significant improvements. How exactly does the Parallels solution work?
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
BTW - Why does boot campt default to Windows when restarting? It drives me nuts! I want to hold the option key ONLY when I want to start up in Windows. As it is, I have to hold it every time I restart and then select OS X, otherwise I get that horrible windows black screen with the ugly text and the pixely logo.
Have you set the startup disk from system preferences?
Originally posted by Mr. Dirk
My understanding is that virtualization is going to be hardware-based in Merom (and I'm sure Conroe), so that might provide significant improvements. How exactly does the Parallels solution work?
Virtualization, by its very nature, can't ever use all of the computers power. Part of the computer is reserved for each OS. There is no virtualization for graphics cards either. It is done in software, the same way it is done now in VPC, so it is slow, no acceleration.