any chance they'll implement the option of always booting os X and sometimes booting to that "choose your direction" screen? can they put something in startup disk about it?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases Boot Camp Beta
- Thread starter rdowns
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re games specifically: gamers are the most likely to "settle" for Windows because you're not using the OS at that time, and you're not trying to collaborate among multiple apps. Windows is "good enough" at that point, if you accept the inconvenience of having to reboot just to game. Except for three factors:
1. When you go online to game in Windows (or download content, or chat/email to set up a match, or browse for hints/cheats), you are subject to Windows malware.
2. To game in Windows, you must buy a copy of Windows. Mac games carry no extra price.
3. If you find Windows gaming acceptable (which I can totally understand), then you ALREADY were gaming in Windows. You owned a PC on the side. Mac owners buying Windows games is NOT anything new with boot camp--it was a factor Mac game companies were already contending with. At least not Mac game companies will have an ever-increasing base to sell to.
1. When you go online to game in Windows (or download content, or chat/email to set up a match, or browse for hints/cheats), you are subject to Windows malware.
2. To game in Windows, you must buy a copy of Windows. Mac games carry no extra price.
3. If you find Windows gaming acceptable (which I can totally understand), then you ALREADY were gaming in Windows. You owned a PC on the side. Mac owners buying Windows games is NOT anything new with boot camp--it was a factor Mac game companies were already contending with. At least not Mac game companies will have an ever-increasing base to sell to.
ultra kyu said:
Yes.
fjs08 said:
First, windows apps won't run "easily" on mac hardware. You have to repartition your drive and install a second OS, which is far beyond what most users are willing to do, PLUS reboot every time you run a windows app. Second, you have to buy XP, which is a couple hundred bucks.
Third, you assume that a developer who drops OSX support will get the same sales back from windows version. If 4% of your sales are OSX, you might sell a few copies to mac users who have installed OSX, but you're more likely to lose those customers to other apps that DO have OSX versions. 4% isn't a huge number, but do you think most companies are willing to throw away even that percentage of sales?
Fourth, that 4% is on the way up and will go up more with this announcement.
The whole argument really isn't any different than saying that developers should dump the mac because users can just buy a peecee, right? By that logic, the mac would have died out already.
It's a simple equation. How much does it cost to ship a mac version? And how much money does the mac version bring in? As long as the first is greater than the second, it makes sense to do a mac version. And don't forget, with the intel chips the platforms are much more similar, making ports easier.
FixIt said:
Which isn't what this is, with the current solution you have to dual boot. And I still say that the assumption that mac users will switch to the windows version of an app instead of switching to a different one is a flawed one.
Install Slipstreamed Copy Of XP From A Retail Box On Both A PC And Our Intel Macs?
I put all the Slipstream Creation Links on Page 23 post 568 including this one.
Thanks Kukito. Now I'm totally confused about the Windows XP license thing. I have in in a retail box. Will I have trouble installing it on a home built PC AND my Macs?kukito said:
I put all the Slipstream Creation Links on Page 23 post 568 including this one.
Another reason for why
I wonder if MS (while committing to Office being on Macs) told Apple that they definitely wouldn't be producing a Universal Binary of Virtual PC for XP - and that whether they'd bother doing one at all for Vista was questionable.
Since presumably Apple has some idea of how many copies of Virtual PC get sold, it might be an aggressive policy of defense to take the wind out of MS sales to announce no more VPC - a little like Safari being around when MS announced no more IE development.
As for no more Mac development? I hate to say this but the 6 non-geek Mac users I know haven't installed anything on their Macs but Office. They get by quite happily on iLife and the OS X apps and haven't been near a Mac developer ever.
I wonder if MS (while committing to Office being on Macs) told Apple that they definitely wouldn't be producing a Universal Binary of Virtual PC for XP - and that whether they'd bother doing one at all for Vista was questionable.
Since presumably Apple has some idea of how many copies of Virtual PC get sold, it might be an aggressive policy of defense to take the wind out of MS sales to announce no more VPC - a little like Safari being around when MS announced no more IE development.
As for no more Mac development? I hate to say this but the 6 non-geek Mac users I know haven't installed anything on their Macs but Office. They get by quite happily on iLife and the OS X apps and haven't been near a Mac developer ever.
The ultimate Mactel will sell millions and boost Mac market share from 3-4% to 25-30% in a few years:
- Boots natively as Mac OS X, as Linux or as Windows XP now and Vista when released.
- Uses true Intel virtualization technology later this year to allow fast switching between oses without having to reboot.
- Allows to interchange files and folders between OSes on the fly.
The halo effect of this will be tremendous. And once Windows nd Linux people use the Mac, they will stick with it and trash Windows nd Linux for ever. But first they need this universal machine to switch with confidence.
And since what makes a Mac is the interface, people will ask for native Mac OS X applications, so developers will have to release them if they want to sell their software to the new growing Mac crew.
- Boots natively as Mac OS X, as Linux or as Windows XP now and Vista when released.
- Uses true Intel virtualization technology later this year to allow fast switching between oses without having to reboot.
- Allows to interchange files and folders between OSes on the fly.
The halo effect of this will be tremendous. And once Windows nd Linux people use the Mac, they will stick with it and trash Windows nd Linux for ever. But first they need this universal machine to switch with confidence.
And since what makes a Mac is the interface, people will ask for native Mac OS X applications, so developers will have to release them if they want to sell their software to the new growing Mac crew.
sonnys said:
Ah yes but running your car on this gas makes it run like crap. Sure, it'll get you where you want to go but the ride is not nearly as enjoyable. Very bumpy, bloated, ugly ride.
However, this deisel fuel is a much better, smoother, enjoyable ride. I'd go out of my way to find deisel fuel and even pay a bit more for the more comfortable ride, as we all have already done by purchasing Apple hardware and software.
it should be out for the Mac in a few months..iflipper said:
I just hope it will play on my ibook (last gen)
A Scenario I Can Believe
Good thinking Marx55. This seems the most plausable scenario by far.Marx55 said:
milo said:
Dell has been growing their customer base every year. Do you understand fully what that means?.. that means dell loses some customers and gains some every year. Their customer gains exceeds their customer losses. I don't see how this announcement by apple changes the dynamic one bit.. perhaps we should say gateway is shaking in their boots or Sony is losing sleep becuase i gurantee you, dell will not be the one losing customers.
Edge100 said:
Winning the onmac.net contest -- $13,000.
Stealing Apple's thunder -- priceless.
I imagine the Apple team working on this was shellshocked by the onmac.net solution (which has prettier icons in the chooser).
Dear Mr. Turdiman,cnetguy said:
Actually, we are all quite fond of this news, so it looks like you are going to have to say you could find nothing but enthusiasm amongst Mac users concerning this news.
Thank you for reporting the truth and not giving 50% weight to a 1 or 2% minority view, like the news media often does.
Sincerely,
I'm Always Right
MacRumors Forum Participant
Hard to say--but since VPC sells copies of Windows, and the market of Mac users is growing, I bet MS does develop a new VPC in the end. (They'd be smarter to do everything they can to block Windows on Macs, but I tend to doubt they will be that smart. And there's only so much they could legally do--leaving aside the issue of the DoJ backing away from enforcing antitrust laws.)iSpud said:
I know I'd buy VPC (or a competing virtualization environment if it was better) if they do make it for Intel Macs. I very rarely need Windows, but I also just like the idea of having many OS's
Virtualization has many advantages over dual-booting. Mainly:
1. You can use ALL your apps at the same time, and not have to give up all your Mac stuff when running that one Windows app.
2. Virtualization contains Windows viruses in a hardfile, protecting the Mac side. VPC doesn't even know your physical hard disk exists--it thinks the hardfile is all there is (unless you choose to share your whole Mac drive, but I recommend just dragging-and-dropping files to share instead). If you boot Windows, on the other hand, a Mac virus could wipe your whole hard disk, Mac partition and all. (And it could even steal your Mac data, if someone bothered to build HFS support into a virus--but that's unlikely.)
mark88 said:
Are you kidding me, ME was widely hearalded as one of the worst Windows releases ever.
Evil Mr. Jobs
You know, I would really hate to play poker with Steeve. Here's the little guy at the table who keeps on putting in a larger and larger percentage of his chips. And you don't know if he's bluffing or whether he's gonna clean you out.
2 Things can happen here. The Mac becomes even more relegated than before and everyone but Apple stops developing for it... Or marketshare goes up because people feel comfortable trying it out and hence more developers start putting applications out for the Mac. Tough call at the moment.
At the moment I'm very positive about it because it means we can get more Macs here at work. And that is good no matter what!
You know, I would really hate to play poker with Steeve. Here's the little guy at the table who keeps on putting in a larger and larger percentage of his chips. And you don't know if he's bluffing or whether he's gonna clean you out.
2 Things can happen here. The Mac becomes even more relegated than before and everyone but Apple stops developing for it... Or marketshare goes up because people feel comfortable trying it out and hence more developers start putting applications out for the Mac. Tough call at the moment.
At the moment I'm very positive about it because it means we can get more Macs here at work. And that is good no matter what!
nagromme said:
LOL you say that his analogy doesn't work because diesel fuel and regular gas both make cars go forward. Well, hate to brake this to you but Windows OS and Mac OS make the computers "go forward" too.
Diesel engines and gas engines use a tad different technologies to achieve the same goal. Same thing with Mac OS and Windows, different approaches but same goal.
And try putting diesel fuel inside a gas engine powered car...
This is so awesome:
http://www.eng.bu.edu/~anc/macosx_bluescreen/blue2.jpg
Can't wait!
"I believe you have my stapler."
http://www.eng.bu.edu/~anc/macosx_bluescreen/blue2.jpg
Can't wait!
"I believe you have my stapler."
Word to the Wise
Gotta say the "Word to the Wise" quote on said rinky brought a smile to my face!!
Gotta say the "Word to the Wise" quote on said rinky brought a smile to my face!!
Malware
This is what scares me the most. OS X with its Unix roots and its strong permissions management is the thing that protects most Macs.
However, if another partition (in this case, the XP partition) could access and write to the OS X partition, then it is conceivable that a piece of malware could be written that:
1. Infects the XP partition;
2. While booted into XP, accesses the OS X partition and installs a component;
3. Executes the next time the OS X is booted.
In such case, I would think that there is no way that OS X could protect its partition...because by the time it is booted, the malicious code has already been written to it and any application hooks will already have been installed.
I am certainly not a software developer and my knowledge regarding this stuff is limited...am I missing something or is this a legitimate concern?
janstett said:
This is what scares me the most. OS X with its Unix roots and its strong permissions management is the thing that protects most Macs.
However, if another partition (in this case, the XP partition) could access and write to the OS X partition, then it is conceivable that a piece of malware could be written that:
1. Infects the XP partition;
2. While booted into XP, accesses the OS X partition and installs a component;
3. Executes the next time the OS X is booted.
In such case, I would think that there is no way that OS X could protect its partition...because by the time it is booted, the malicious code has already been written to it and any application hooks will already have been installed.
I am certainly not a software developer and my knowledge regarding this stuff is limited...am I missing something or is this a legitimate concern?
This gives me the willies. It's like the point in the serial killer movie when the cop finds the first body.
Headline should be "something wicked this way comes."
Headline should be "something wicked this way comes."