17 Comments

Summary:

TUAW posted an observation that Apple’s Get a Mac campaign page mentions Parallel’s and not Boot Camp. Oh, how do I say this? Duh? Apple wouldn’t recommend their software for these reasons: Boot Camp is a public beta, something that a new customer probably wants to […]

TUAW posted an observation that Apple’s Get a Mac campaign page mentions Parallel’s and not Boot Camp.

Oh, how do I say this? Duh? Apple wouldn’t recommend their software for these reasons:

    Boot Camp is a public beta, something that a new customer probably wants to avoid to have a trouble-free experience. Frankly, setting up Boot Camp is a bit of a chore for the new Mac user. Reccomending it to this crowd would be murder.
    Parallels isn’t set to expire after Leopard is release. What? Yes, that’s right. Boot Camp is prebuilt with an expiry date. Besides, I find that many customers prefer Parallels over Boot Camp because rebooting all the time is one of the reasons they switched. Apple did NOT mention Parallels without reservation before it reach release status. Now that it is a ‘real’ product, it is a solution that can be used without much liability.

Speculate all you want about 10.5 and the reasons the Get a Mac site doesn’t bring up Boot Camp as a solution. Until it is announced exactly what Apple plans to include in Leopard, rumors are what they are. The real truth is that Boot Camp isn’t a good solution for the audience they are targeting here.

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. Interesting about the ‘murder’ part.

    A lot of my windows using buddies say the main reason they would switch is because they are light-medium gamers and they want to run windows games and use osx. Obviously parallels wouldn’t do for these people!

    Of course, a person who’s a gamer in the pc world already knows about all the headaches with windows and how to fix them and would likely be able to install bootcamp without apple’s ‘recommendation’.

    For the regular idiot I’d have to agree though :)

  2. Jesse J. Anderson Monday, June 19, 2006

    I’ve been reading a lot about boot camp and parallels since I got my mac and a lot of people seem to be leaning towards parallels.

    This totally confuses me as the only reason I can think to run windows is for running games… and as Ryan said, parallels just doesn’t make sense for that.

    Am I alone here? What else are people wanting to use windows on a mac for?

  3. I feel so strong about the latest issues uncovered by Mark Pilgrim and Tim Bray, regarding Apple’s increasing “closed formats”, that I wish to make the larger Mac community aware of the issues, in the hopes that this concern widens and that we users force Apple to changes it’s course on “closed formats”. I am especially considered with their undocumented changes to Mail.app.

    see: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2006/06/15/Switch-From-Mac
    http://diveintomark.org/archives/2006/06/16/juggling-oranges
    and Gruber at
    http://daringfireball.net/2006/06/and_oranges

  4. Quicken for example. The Mac version of Quicken is not as good as the Windows version. If you are a former Windows user as I am, it is impossible to import 15 years of Quicken data from Windows to OS X. It is a travesty that the CEO of Quicken sits on Apple’s BOD –there should be co-equal functionality in both Windows and Mac versions and the file integration/import/export ought to be seamless as well as totally transparent. After all neither are totally new products.

  5. Actually there was a page up where Apple was promoting Boot Camp. Unfortunately I don’t have the URL for it in my history, but it was up there for a little while.

  6. All Adobe & Macromedia apps require Windows as they are slow on intel Macs. AutoCad is a Windows-only application and there’s always a Windows-only application round the corner (I still see offices that run DOS apps!).

    For the above examples, users need to be able to jump from one app to the other all the time. Frequent rebooting would be painful though, and Parallels’ solution looks great for that.

    Gaming on the other hand is different. When playing in full screen you usually do just that. So it’s affordable to boot into Windows, play your game and reboot into OSX again for everything else.

  7. The audience they are targeting here (myself included) would be much happier if there was an official (stable) osX version that runs on a pc.
    I would switch in a second and use windows only for gaming.
    I’m a student and I really need the 30% extra cash you need to buy a Mac, so the choice is easily made.
    I mean, Intel Mac’s are expensive well designed pc’s for the hardware part, well
    my pc also looks great on the outside and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Believe it or not there are people who don’t like the way Mac’s look on the outside, funny isn’t it the fact that people like to CHOOSE how their machine looks.
    I love osX, it an amazing os, but I hate the more expensive/less upgradeable hardware that comes with it.

    Parallels and boot camp are great but I don’t think they will persuade pc people to buy a more expensive machine, to run… the same software they were running on a pc. What’s the point?

  8. Ryan- I think the “murder” point was that officially reccommending relativly complex, and still beta software [boot camp] with conviction would be “suicide” for Apple because of the support backlash from “regular idiots” .

    Ryan – You dont think Parallels and Boot Camp will “persuafe pc people to buy a more expensive machine to run the same software they were running on a pc” ?

    Firstly, the macbook, for example offers value at least on par with any similarly specced windows laptop. And thats only when you consider spec, without bringing the dual boot potential into consideration.

    Secondly, theres plenty of mac exclusive software, Logic Pro being the first that springs to mind. Of course the Operating System itself, and the choice of both operating systems in one machine is surely a huge incentive.

    Finally, there are already plenty of people “making the switch” and theres no doubt that the dual OS potential of intel macs is a major factor in that.

    “Whats the point”?
    Best of both worlds.

  9. Taking aside the fact that I found a pc laptop in a store in my neighborhood that has exactly the technical specs of the $2,799.00 17inch Mac book pro, for $2,131,00 with the only difference being an Intel core duo 2 GHz in the pc, instead of the 2.16GHz in the Mac. But for the rest, identical (the specs). Personaly i don’t like paying 600$ extra just because the machine looks good in the eyes of steve.

    But you understood me wrong about the software part, I truly LOVE osX, I know there are a lot of programs only for the Mac, and there are a lot only for windows.
    But I don’t like the hardware part of the Mac, I don’t have the money to buy one, I like to be able to choose the processor I put into my system, I like/need to upgrade at least twice a year etc.

    I know a lot of people who think the same, hate the hardware, love the os.
    So what I was trying to say was: Why oh why don’t won’t they release an osX version that runs on pc’s, then there would be a huge amount of people switching.

    “What’s the point” of making people buy a more expensive machine to run an os that can run perfectly on the pc you have now. Yes it might be ugly but it doesn’t have to be. If you look a little harder pc’s are not only beige boxes anymore.
    It’s just a dumb way to keep people buying your hardware.

  10. Mantiz,

    “I found a pc laptop in a store in my neighborhood that has exactly the technical specs of the $2,799.00 17inch Mac book pro, for $2,131,00 with the only difference being an Intel core duo 2 GHz in the pc, instead of the 2.16GHz in the Mac. But for the rest, identical”

    Well, the iMac has the built in iSight, can run OSX and Winblows, and not only that but it all comes in one box and all works right out of that box, there’s no drivers or PITA updates, and it comes with tons of awesome software (such as iLife).

    It’s easily worth 600$ to me just to not have to run windows, I must say. But the extras involved make it a no brainer.

    That brings me to your point about ‘why make people buy new hardware when their current PC runs it fine’… Apple is a hardware company. The question isn’t why don’t they let you run OSX on any old hardware but why SHOULD they let you. They control the hardware, they know their machines work flawlessly with their OS. If they let you install OSX on, say, an Athlon64 3500 / Asus A8N-E / eVGA 6600GT / 1GB Kingston DDR400 / WD 2500KS / etc then that’s a TON of new hardware they need to support with drivers (one of the things windows has been plagued with for years). Why would they want to do that especially since they’re losing hundreds on every hardware sale they’ve just lost? It makes no sense.

    This is the exact same problem as people have with iTunes. Why in the world would Apple unlink iPod’s and the iTMS? You think they make decent money selling songs over the iTMS or selling copies of their OS for half the price of windows xp? No. They make their money selling iPods and Macs.

    If you want to choose the processor you put in your system and you want full control over the hardware in it then a Mac is simply not for you and you aren’t the kind of person Apple is aiming for right now.

    For me, I work at a custom computer shop, and I’ve built all my own computers for over 10 years. Even so I simply can’t live with windows, the only thing I see it being good for is games, and so really no matter the cost I will buy whatever I have to to get a decent OS. Linux isn’t ready for the desktop and windows is painful at best, therefore Mac OS X, being awesome, is my only option.

    If I get a ton of iLike apps and internet explorer is nowhere in sight and I get all the little quirks of the nice hardware (quiet, pretty, easy to setup/move, motion sensor, isight, ambient light sensor with illuminating keyboard, magsafe power adapter, nice power adapters in general (ever used one? it’s so nice), totally brilliant scrolling trackpad, firewire 800, osx’s unix underwear, awesome wireless performance, tons of awesome ‘micro-isv’ software not to mention the pro apps, and so on and so on… then all the better! Why would I want to custom build my machine when apple custom builds machines just the way I want them anyway?!

Comments have been disabled for this post