On Wedesday, Apple released the public beta of Boot Camp, which allows for the installation of Windows XP on Intel-based Macs. I think this is a very smart move. It seems like more Windows users are considering buying a Mac for their next computer. But they often don’t end up switching because critical business apps or games aren’t ported to OS X. Boot Camp removes this obstacle.
And when they see the blue screen of death (via TUAW), they won’t have to grin an bear it anymore. They can just boot into the more reliable OS on their machine. Eventually, some of them will just give Windows the boot.
By the way, does anyone else think that Apple meant the name “Boot Camp” to be more than just a semi-clever name? I can think of a couple hidden meanings that it might have.
Tweet
Brilliant Bits
GitHub
Google Reader
LinkedIn
Pinboard
Twitter
wish list
YouTube
Pingback: Tailrank - Top posts
So can I…. But you won’t want to hear them. ;-)
That’s such a cop-out. Why do you think Boot Camp is bad?
Because it paves one more roadway to the (possible) dissolution of OSX as a whole. If the hordes can run Windows on PC-wannabe — er excuse me, new Mac hardware, they’re not gonna bother with OSX at all. Plus, it’s Windows’ biggest competition; it makes sense to think that MS would want to control or eliminate that threat.
Just consider the possibility before you poo-poo my thought. And if it helps illustrate, look at what MS did to IBM over the OS/2 years. I think you’ll see the similarity, and thusly, my suspicions.
People who only want to run Windows aren’t going to buy Mac hardware though, since it’s still more expensive than comparable PC hardware. It’s for those who need both platforms, and those who want to try OS X without risking being trapped with a useless piece of expensive hardware if they don’t like it. That opens up opportunities to convert people to OS X, not the other way around.
I don’t think OS/2 is really comparable here because there’s no agreement being sabotaged, nor any ‘surprise’ that one company is going to unleash on the other. MS still gets to sell more Windows licenses and Apple still sells more hardware, which is where each of them makes their money, so it’s win-win for all of them.
The other issue is how this will effect small developement companies who make Mac versions of their software. The next time they get into a financial crunch they can simply eliminate the Mac developers from the payroll, eliminate the need for yet another version of the software and suggest OSX users simply boot into Windows on their machines to use the “new and improved” version of the software.
But…. I still think this is a positive developement long term. I just think it will have a few unfortunate consequences along the way.
I love the name “boot camp.” ;-)
As usual, John Gruber says all this a million times better than I do.
Pingback: 4/8/2006 6:52 AM - Matthew Gifford
Seems backwards to me to make it so you can run XP on a Mac..
Why not make it easier to run OSX on everyone’s windows-based rigs instead? Or can I do that now? And if I can, why isn’t that information made more public? And if I can’t: do you think that’s where Apple’s REALLY going with the whole switch to intel processors?
Would make more sense since.. majority of people already have computer hardware. Why force them to buy new rigs? Easier to give them an option to just buy a new OS.. no?
You can do that, but it takes some work. It’s also not usable because there won’t be drivers for all of your hardware.
Apple has always been a computer company, not just a hardware or software company. I doubt that OS X is going to officially work on non-Apple hardware anytime soon.
Most people who are planning on upgrading to Vista early next year (if it actually comes out then) are going to need to buy new hardware. I think Apple is working to convince those people that they can buy a better machine that runs both OS X and Vista for just a little more money.