Apple's Boot Camp
 

http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

So what do you think? Will this be the smartest move Apple ever made?

I think it's really smart. Apple does it all (almost, at least.) Switching has never been easier.

That looks to me like it would be something more geared towards people who have always used Macs to be able to get some experience in Windows before moving completely to a PC. That of course makes little sense.

Wait, no, that makes perfect sense. People will start buying Apple computers and installing Windows on them. Sucks to be osx~

Frankly it's surprising, but it makes sense. If using Windows XP on a Mac would get more Mac users, then I guess Apple's all for it.

I've been waiting a long time for this to happen. I think it's unanimous that Mac hardware is probobly the most beautiful inside and out, but switching to MAC OS isn't something I, and probobly many others, where not interested in.

This is like a dream come true ;)

Considering that enthusiasts already got Windows XP to work on iMacs, this isn't really all that surprising.

Mind as well give everyone the easy solution.

which is exactly what apple wants. They don't like people fiddling about with their hardware, using it inappropriately. If I was still actively using my windows PC, this event might have pushed me to the Apple side. Fortunately for me I fell for Apple last summer when I was finally able to afford the insanely expensive Ipod... Later on I buyed my first Apple powerbook. I can't possibly imagine ever buying a windows PC ever again, now that boot camp has been introduced. I think many others will feel the same way.

The importance of this is that unlike the hacked solution, this provides full driver support.

And the target audience is most likely those who have a Mac, and like OSX, but need to run a Windows application or two. And for those that want to play Windows only games, no longer have to buy a whole new machine just to get in a few games.

It's great, and I'd be a heck of a lot more interested in it if they had a mid-range headless Mac.

Why headless? The Apple monitors are top of the line.

I think this is a great move... Now any tightass PC users who are too afraid to switch over will have less trouble doing that.

Use Mac OS for a stable, working environment for every task you have, use WinXP for games. I'm sold.

Finally.
Now all I need to do is save up a couple years worth of funds, and I will actually be able to take advantage of this.
Seriously, Mac should work more on trying to decrease the costs of their hardware.

So could someone explain the reason to buy Apple at 4 times the cost of a Wintel machine? You know if MacOS runs on a Intel iBook, it's going to work the other way around.

Since they pretty much design and sell everything without 3rd party help, I don't see a price drop happening any time soon.

There shouldn't be a price drop. What they offer is of supreme quality, and quality costs money. Pay and enjoy, or don't pay and get stuck in the world of Windows.

Well uhh I dunno but Apple just gave up everything that made them special. What a fucking shit is that, I mean it's good for the fucking company, they will sell like 500% more computers now, but uhh, it's a tragic day for all hardcore fans. Oh well.

You seem to forget that Linux is just fine for some people. Granted, a considerably smaller number than Windows or OSX...

Don't get me wrong, I have few problems with Macs. (One being their tremendously short half-life. Also, unfortunately, the price range for good/better Macs is still somewhat inaccessible for some.)

Relating more to the topic, it is good that Apple has decided to give its users the easy route to running XP on their Mac. I wonder how long it will be until OSX works on PCs...

Why the freaking fuck would anyone prefer OSX over Windows (even Windows 95)

In many aspects, OSX is--for some, anyway--easier to learn.
Maybe it... looks friendlier?
(I'm really hoping that this won't turn into an OS war now ;_; )

Wow, this is nice news. Hoever, I have no idea how Macs look like from the inside - do they have powerful graphical cards?

Well it's not like Windows welcomes you with a message like "hey you cocksucker which virus do you want today?"

You can certainly purchase one when customizing a Mac upon ordering. (We had to for my school.)
I believe that, for example, the MacBook Pros come with an ATI Mobility X1600.

No, it's not.
I suppose that, for another group of people, OSX feels much smoother. (The eye candy, perhaps.)
Maybe someone who actually owns a Mac could answer this without causing a flame war. (I can only tell of what I hear users--mainly at school--say about it.)

Well, unless you've actually USED a mac with OSX, you can't really get deeper into this...

Once you've worked with OSX for about two weeks, you know why you'll never go back to Windows.

I think this isn't too bad, as long as XP doesn't run more slowly than it would on a similairly priced non-apple machine. I'm a bit skeptical however; when operating systems are emulated (VMware), the performance goes downhill. This is becuase not only does the computer have to process the emulated OS, but it has to process it`s own commands simultaneously. Unless Apple has somehow allowed XP to function independantly, I don`t think It will go over that well.

Did you know that Search is called Find on OSX?

Now all we need are Macs equipped with windows to be standard.

Who needs MAC OS, it's all upside down anyway.

I'd rather be able to install OSX on my PC. Much more convenient, considering the hardware costs.

Because I already have a good monitor. And because one is likely to replace their monitor less often than their computer.

Maybe someone would like an iMac class machine, but doesn't want to pay for the screen each and every time they upgrade their machine. Maybe they want to run this iMac class machine on a bigger screen than the iMacs come in.

I agree that Apple sells great screens, but it sucks that to use one of their Cinema displays you are expected to run a mini (low end) or a Powermac (obscenely high end).

They both have their weak and strong points. I find OSX less GUI tweak friendlt than Windows XP, of course OSX is Unix based, so that could explain my last opinion.
Generally Windows is to show of gaming, OSX is to show of movies and other forms of multimedia (which the popular programs for each OS emphasize).

I agree.

And:


It runs natively, so unless I'm missing something, it'll work without any emulating.

In fact, actually, some people would say they run Windows even better than PC couterparts.

Well if that's true, it's going to be a (if not THE) best move Apple ever made. Even if some people say that they've just sold their soul.

Looking at this purely from an objective point of view, if I had no computer and had to decide between an apple computer that runs the best of both worlds or a Windows based PC that runs only Windows (and not even as good as the Apple hardware) it wouldn't even be a decision anymore, a Mac would be the obvious choice.

Double Post:
Ofcourse, the big question is, how long will it take before Microsoft starts fighting this.

Double Post:
Also: By the time this is integrated in OSX 10.5 Leopard, Vista will probably be out, and people will want to buy that instead of XP...

You've gotta ask yourself *why* MS would fight it.

This means that they get to sell more retail copies of Windows, which is a considerably higher profit margin for them than OEM. As far as they are concerned, why would it matter that it's going on an Apple branded machine as opposed to a Dell, HP, Acer, etc. machine?

Seriously, I think it would be great if Apple would included the option when purchasing a new Mac of having Windows XP already given a 20 GB partition and installed when the Mac arrives at the cost of an OEM Windows XP Service Pack 2 disc.

That's never gonna happen. And those are Apple's words, not mine.

Why would MS fight it? Well, they might sell more copies of Windows, but they'd also be helping Apple conquer a much bigger part of the computer world.

I think Microsoft would much rather fight Apple over this to ensure their own dominance on the market than make a bit more money on Windows sales.

Microsoft would fight it because should their operating system be compared side by side with OS X everyone will laugh.

I don't really understand why'd you want this. Apple computers running Windows would be like a really hot chick having hepatitus C.

Sure it might be a nice business move but I can't see myself ever doing this.

Or, you know, you could just USE Mac OS X for a while and maybe you'd understand why people are so enthusiastic about it. It's just better in general—from the overall design to its look and feel to the functionality and uniformity of operation between applications... it's a smoother, more consistent, and more pleasant experience than Windows. (Not to mention safer).

I'm excited about Boot Camp because it means I can finally chuck this damned PC tower out the window and just buy a MacBook Pro. Then I've got MacOS X for all my daily needs (plus all my graphic design and video editing needs) since it's the system I actually enjoy, and I can reboot quickly into XP if I want to run a Windows-only game. No more need for two computers, an extra monitor, or any of that crap. Very convenient.

As for why Apple's stuff costs more (it's not 4 times as much, stop exaggerating), there are several reasons. One: Apple is a small hardware company whose profits are made on hardware margins, which they use to finance all their software development. Unlike Microsoft, Apple does not make the bulk of their money off OS X or iLife. They make most of their money off the sales of their hardware (computers and iPods). Thus to stay profitable they need to charge for their hardware. Two: Apple spends a lot of time custom designing motherboards, cases, and related items. It's no secret that their industrial design is a cut above anything else out there in the PC world. They make functional AND beautiful machines, and that costs money. And finally, three: Apple's machines simply are more functional than most PCs. Yes, you can self-build an "equivalent" PC for less money, but it's not as much less as you'd think. And in the realm of laptops, when you customize a Dell or other manufacturer's laptop to match a MacBook Pro, you'll find that it often costs nearly as much.

In the end, a Mac now is more functional than ANY PC. It can run Windows—whoop de doo, so can everyone else, but it can ALSO run the best operating system out there: Mac OS X. You can go anywhere for Windows, but there's only one place you can get OS X, and that's Apple.

Like I asked before, what's to stop OS X from running on a Wintel machine now? Obviously if Windows XP can run on a Mac, then a simple logical conclusion is OS X will inversely run on a Wintel machine. And I'll be able to do it on better hardware that cost me half as much as it would buying a Mac. (Yes half as much, that is not an exaggeration. I'll do the exact breakdown if you would like.)

There isn't anything stopping you, unless you want some official solution.

Apple probably won't release something to let you do that, though, since they'd be undercutting their own hardware sales.

Cless made that quite clear, if you could get past all the smugness.

MaxOS X does run on a WinTel box. Sort of. There is just a huge lack of driver support. Getting it to install takes some hacking, and unless you build a system to closely match the hardware inside of an iMac/Mac Mini you wont get support for wireless networking, graphics, or wired networking. So, while it runs, its more of a geek badge of pride than something useful.

BootCamp is little more than a collection of Windows drivers to support the Mac hardware. The real magic is in the recent firmware update that adds the necessary CSM to the EFI implementation that Apple had initially left out. This is what allows the booting of legacy operating systems, including non-EFI Linux.

Oh, and today a company called Parallels released a beta of their Virtualization software for MacOS X Intel (like VMWare) allowing the option of running Windows from within MacOS X rather than dual-booting.

To Cetra, as ElectricSheep so helpfully pointed out, Apple's the only source for drivers for OS X. So unless you build an iMac clone (a desktop running a Core Duo on EFI with an ATI Radeon X1600 on PCIe, the same audio hardware, etc...) you won't have support for all your stuff. Running OS X on PCs requires you hack and steal (no boxed version of OS X for Intel exists yet, and won't until version 10.5 Leopard comes out sometime early next year) and it's still nowhere near an optimum experience. So, that's what's preventing you. No support. Apple can choose to release drivers for their hardware to work seamlessly with Windows. They can also choose not to release a version of OS X that will run on whatever crud you put together.

And yes, please build me a Core Duo based system in an attractive, slim, space-saving case with full-featured hardware for half the cost of a Mac. The last thing I want in the world is another ugly, space-hogging mid-tower.

And to ElectricSheep—not just Windows. Parallels will run pretty much any x86-based operating system, by the look of things. Much like VMWare.

Now, now, beggars can't be choosers here.

This is a very important lesson you'll have to learn.

Nonsense. I have a choice, and I've chosen it. People value different things, and that's something that the "PCs ARE OMG CHEAPER" crowd needs to learn. I value the total package, and I'm willing and able to pay for it. I think outside the insular nerd community that's the prevalent view.

Except you can still get a high quality PC for cheaper than a high quality Mac.

Bah, who wants Windows on their computer anyway? Thanks to some random problem my XP install is now useless, and since I've been living in Linux all year anyway I don't even see the point of repairing it. Mac OS X is the only other operating system I'd want to have on here, but considering how much control I have over everything in Linux I don't know if I'd spend much time on that either. And the look of my computer case is not so important to me that I'd buy a Mac for the sole purpose of putting Linux on it.

But getting a high quality PC means you can't run Mac OS X without serious compromises to the OS. And part of the effectiveness of OS X is based on its close ties to the hardware it runs on (allowing the OS to exploit it in a manner it couldn't do if it had to support every piece of hardware on the market). Severing the ties between Mac OS X and the Mac hardware kills a great part of the appeal of getting a Mac.

That's why we have Linux. MacOs isn't the end-all be all of operating systems. Besides, it's just a matter of time before those hackers out there figure out an easy process to get Mac Os X installed on a PC anyway.

Yup, my Windows is giving me crap a few weeks after install as well and I just use that bitch for games. I agree on the notion that a MacOSX/Linux dual boot scenario would be the prefereable setup on an Intel Mac, but this still doesen't solve the gaming issue. And Call of Cthulhu has been pretty good so far... =/

If you think Linux is in any way comparable to the current state of OS X, you're dreaming.

No, it's not.

But to think OS X is better than sex, like you appear to be doing, is just as much dreaming.

OSX is sex for the brain :edgarrock:

:biggrin:

No, let's not go down that road, but you can't argue with millions of dedicated fans worldwide. OSX doesn't get in your face like Windows does. I'm actually a fan of XP as well, before I got OSX I was pretty happy with the way it went, but then it was one virus after the other and things went downhill very fast from there on... OSX is a tool that sits quietly in the background, but does everything you want it to do, very gracefully. Anyways, that's just my two cents.

There's equal amounts of things that would make a user confused/wonder why the fuck they chose a way to do something/etc., etc. in OS X, Windows, and Linux.

To deny this would mean you're naïve. Or maybe even stupid.

What the fuck are you even saying.

That may be your $.02, but exchange rates say otherwise.

Hey, to each his own. No need to get so defensive all the time. I respect your point of view. Maybe you should try doing the same.

I'm not really trampling over your point, either. I just don't understand what you're saying.

Except for the first part, that's just an inane loop-around that really doesn't matter.

What I meant was that, in my opinion, XP asks alot of your attention as a user. Not only when it comes to settings (e.g. drivers, network settings, etc) but also security (e.g. Spam, spyware, viruses, ...) or those annoying little things like when you disconnect a network cable you constantly get that little pop up window at the bottom right corner that just keeps coming back. There are more things but I can't really think of them. XP basically has the ability to really get on my nerves, whereas OSX has never once done that.

Again, just my opinion, because you probably have a million things to say that would completely undermine this post.

OS X exposes functionality in a graceful, well-designed, and more often than not in an easy-to-understand way. Windows obfuscates functionality behind wizards and helpers and basically hand-holds a user most of the time. Whereas Windows is always popping up some "helpful" notification at me from the system tray or trying to "dumb down" something complicated by adding a wizard, OS X just makes it simple and logical in the first place.

Which is to say that overall OS X is more friendly to both new users AND power-users. For those who are relatively new, OS X makes life pretty easy to understand. You've got the Dock, you've got the Applications folder, you put your documents in the Documents folder, your music in iTunes, your pictures in iPhoto, etc. For the experienced power-user, you can do basically what you want with your system without being confronted by a lot of helpers or wizards—you can just DO shit.

The sort of object lesson of this is OS X's Terminal. Obviously OS X has a UNIX heritage—it's essentially BSD on a Mach microkernel with a lot of Apple enhancements and a pretty face. A new user can use OS X and never need to know all that. But an experienced user or UNIX jockey can jump right down into the Terminal and get into the guts of the system to do all the usual stuff they can do elsewhere... AND they can run Photoshop or Final Cut or other big-name apps natively.

That's the long version of what I believe MagicalVacation was trying to express.

Funny, cless, how I can type open the terminal on windows too! How about that one, eh. And I even have my choice of cmd, bash, and monad, depending on what form of rape I feel like undergoing today.

In other news, AE7 is still just as buggy and slow as shit on Apple as Windows. (A way of saying the third-party differentiation just isn't there, and that's where 90% of my work gets done.)

@ Cless
You've done you homework on that OS for sure. Please, tell me about package management.

If you're referencing Linux-style package management for OS X, both Fink (based on Debian's apt-get/dpkg system) and DarwinPorts (obviously based on BSD's Ports system) are available for those who need tools typically distributed through those sorts of channels. I'm not a user of either, as I deal mostly with OS X GUI apps, which are (obviously) pre-compiled binaries distributed using disk images.

So the command line, or terminal in Windows is as important as it is on *nix?

What is AE7? The acronym doesn't ring a bell. But if that's all you use, and they haven't made their program for shit on OSX or Windows, then the only difference is which OS you like using more.

Now I'm considering getting a MacBook Pro. Although I'm gonna wait till the prices go down or when my local Apple Store is having a sale. I have only a iMac G5 running OSX 10.4 and I read the reviews for Boot Camp. That's why I'm considering getting a MacBook Pro now.

It entirely depends on what you need to do.

If you do programming, you'll need the command line (like you'll need the terminal in *nix,) in order to compile your programs into executables. You can't just double click on a .cpp, .class or perl script and expect it to just run.

I'd pretty much say the command line in Windows is about as equally important as the terminal in *nix OS's (this is especially true with various flavors of Linux moving towards automatic package managment applications, like Synaptics in Ubuntu.)

He might be referring to Adobe After Effects 7.

Now, don't throw Final Cut at him, because you can't compare software between Windows and OS X when one of them doesn't have the software.

Although he could say that software which serves a purpose on one operating system and isn't available on the other operating system is better than whatever software is available for the other operating system. :)

I don't really see any reason why an average user shouldn't get a Mac now. Sure they're expensive, but you definitely get what you pay for. I figure the issue of Windows-only games will become a moot point now that OS X runs on x86, although I suppose DirectX is still an issue. But it shouldn't take too long for WINE to be ported to OS X.

Yeah, except he's talking about software available for both OS X and Windows.

I just find it very retarded and unfair to compare software when what you're comparing just doesn't exist on the other platform. You'd have to broaden the topic, first.

Final Cut Pro is Premier's equivalent, there's really no replacement for AE out there. I do like FCP better than Premier Pro, however, in some cases a lot better. Sadly, avisynth is still windows-only, so that gets the nod by default.

In most cases all the useful software that isn't provided by Apple is available roughly equally for both OSes, especially free software. What isn't, usually divides more into comprehensive (and often quick to use) commercial packages for windows, or small command-line utilities for nix systems. (Fontforge being a major exception I use a lot.)

I'm pretty much immune to the UI differences between the two, except that it takes about 20 minutes to get into the flow when I switch after some time away. Some things are better in each. Personally? I hate having to hit a different key for every variation of yes/no dialog out there. I love being able to use y or n in windows programs when I know the question but haven't memorized the answers.

avisynth is a pathetic hack of an outdated video framework that blows. As a frameserver, it's clever, but reference movies in Quicktime can accomplish at least the frameserver bit of it. I'm assuming you use AE and avisynth for anime fansubbing... which is one of those awfully specialized fields (that is to say, not a professional one at all representative of the "real world").

As for AE replacements, there are plenty. In fact, AE is the bottom rung when it comes to motion graphics/compositing software. Motion is, overall, a better motion graphics package, and in the compositing world it's Discreet's line of products (Combustion up through their Flame/Inferno hardware-software combos... bought out by Autodesk I think) for TV/commercial or quick-turnaround work, or Apple's Shake for feature films. There are a few other software-only compositing solutions I'm not as familiar with and whose names escape me at the moment.

No, cless, I use it for semi-pro video editing, local shit and not film though. Some of the cleanup filters developed for it literally surpass anything I've found in commercial packages. I can get a damn frameserver anywhere. (loooooooooool quicktime. wtf?) And it's free and fast; video gets too expensive too quickly, especially 3rd party AE and Premier plugins. The upgrade to FCP studio isn't steep, so I'll check out motion, but I can't really jusify dropping another grand or three on Autodesk just to find out they suck just a little less than AE. And back to the point of this thread, they're also not mac exclusives.

How exactly is video editing awfully specialized, when macs have always catered to multimedia composition and editing? That's their fucking specialty. Or did you mean fansubbing? Most of them are hacks and neophytes, but they still fall into the bottom of the general video ecosystem.

Yes. That was my point, but I'm not a professional Mac-Head. I only know the basics and a little bit of the underlying architecture, but it ends there. Thanks for clearing it up. :)

QuickTime isn't just QuickTime Player. On the Mac it's an entire video framework, and a damn sight better one than AVI. As for AVIsynth filters, I'd assume most are open-source since they're free (though yes, not all free things are open source). Seems to me it wouldn't take too much work for them to be ported to the AE plugin framework, which is shared amongst programs like combustion and Shake as well. I mean, in the end, it's "video in > operations (settings) > video out." I'm surprised the people developing avisynth plugins haven't bothered to make them available within other software. As for Combustion, Autodesk offers a 30-day free trial. Download it and see what you think.

And yes, I meant fansubbing is awfully specialized, and by that I mean "basically restricted to very specific, AVI-reliant Windows-only utilities" and populated by people who aren't very overall experienced with video.

I'm definitely getting a MacBookPro now. Mac OS X and the possibility of Vista and a Linux distro? Come on now, does anything else really beat that?

Has anyone heard anything about getting Vista to run on it?

Well, considering that Vista doesn't exist yet and that the beta will be nothing like the final...

I don't think Vista will run on it... The boot camp has been designed for existing Windows XP versions. Isn't Vista going to have a very different architecture? Or is it going to be similar...

Double Post:
Also, I found this on CNET today.