Submitted by “Don’t get too excited about the whole Mac/Windows dual-boot thing. Although a wide range of starry-eyed experts have lauded Boot Camp in tones not heard since the days of OS/2, it’s really nothing to get excited about. Here are my top reasons why – at least to real computer users – ‘Boot Chump’ is a snore.”
is he 12?
No, he’s being *highly* sarcastic. I’m sure he really doesn’t like boot camp or Macs (he’s known as a Microsoft apologist) but I found the article to be a good laugh.
Ya know, I had a hard time telling if he was kidding or not. It seemed too incredibly idiotic to be serious, but then there was no “but hey, I’m just being sarcastic” part at the end…
I think he’s serious and he’s living in 1993 when people cared about the wintel macppc war.
Yeah, I dont think that PPC vs Intel will work well at this point…
What about the software…?
http://cultofmac.com/?p=312
I’m just sayin’….could it be the OS?
All it is is a boot menu that will not ask you what OS you want to load by default or give you the menu upon starting up. Sounds like a crappified boot loader. If grub ran on Macs, it would be a lot better situation for everyone. Except Apple who wants to make it difficult to get into alternative operating systems. Seriously how are you supposed to know what keys to press to get into Windows and why do you have to remember to do it every time?
“All it is is a boot menu that will not ask you what OS you want to load by default or give you the menu upon starting up.”
You’ve obviously never used it. You are given a default OS, and you can choose which one; OS X doesn’t need to be the default.
The only key you have to press to get your options is the Control key. This is hardly different than GRUB, as most distros set it with a default OS and require a key press to choose an alternate OS.
Speaking about something you have no idea about will just make you look ignorant.
> All it is is a boot menu that will not ask you what OS you want to load by default or give you the menu upon starting up
No, it is NOT a “boot menu”. It is a partition “wizard” that also creates a XP drivers CD. Boot Camp made a few things easier, but the “magic” behind Macs running XP was the FIRMWARE upgrades that load legacy BIOS support. Most user familiar with Dual Booting scenarios do NOT EVEN REQUIRE Boot Camp to install XP once the firmware update is in place. Although, they would likely use it to create an XP drivers CD.
> If grub ran on Macs, it would be a lot better situation for everyone.
Grub DOES run on Macs. Like it’s PC counterpart, it can only boot the most simple setups, enjoys hanging up on “stage 2” and often has issues with booting from USB, SATA, and, Firewire. Grub is in fact one of the nastiest pieces of GNU software in widespread use. To make it remotely useful in modern booting schemes you have experiment in manual editing. Often times writing a boot loader from scratch seems a better solution. How this displaced LILO as the running standard is beyond me, I mean LILO was a manual configure situation too; but at least it usually worked. Isn’t XOSL gnu? WTF – why ain’t it standard?
> Except Apple who wants to make it difficult to get into alternative operating systems.
Apple would have not released Boot Camp if they wanted it to be difficult. The vast knowledge and skill of the GNU community has successfully implemented 12 page instructions on how to make Mactels boot XP after months of work competing for cash and prizes. Apple got tired of waiting. They didn’t want users to wait 4 years or so for the GNU wanna-be-hackers to come up with an elegant solution.
> Seriously how are you supposed to know what keys to press to get into Windows and why do you have to remember to do it every time?
It’s point and click thru System Preferences Panel which all OS X user are familiar. A start up key for a graphical boot menu is also available, as most Mac users know (it was available LONG before Boot Camp).
Perhaps you should stick to commenting on things you are familiar with.
Because it boots BSD too. I think that’s pretty much the whole reason it’s largely replaced lilo.
I’m not sure whether the article is pure sarcasm or a troll-piece. Boot camp gives us choice. And it’s good for that one and sufficient reason. I don’t see how choice could be bad.
“Sounds like a crappified boot loader.”
So, it’s obvious that you have no first-hand experience to back this up.
If Apple wanted to make it difficult, they wouldn’t have release Boot Camp at all.
I’m truly amazed at the level of intelligence displayed here at OSNews from time to time!
Apple didn’t release Boot Camp until people figured out how to get Windows running on Macs on their own. It was done because Apple didn’t want to see how far they could get and provide an uncontrolled experience for Windows. They wanted to retain control of how Windows was going to work on their computers if it would work at all. They wanted to cause the performance and everything to be determined by them, no one else.
Its really simple why Apple released it. They want to make it as difficult as possible to make Windows your primary OS choice and the community was going to make it way too easy, with stuff like providing a menu without having to press some secret key. A huge reason for it hiding it is they are hoping some unknowing person who would prefer to use Windows will turn it on, with Windows installed, and not be able to figure out how to get into Windows and be forced to use Apple’s operating system.
I think that Apple took it for granted that people *would* be able to figure out how to get Windows to boot on Macs. They had to have considered this before they took the decision to go with Intel. The decision to go with Intel would not have been taken lightly, and these things would have been thought through carefully. Why do they announce boot camp after an independent solution is found? Because Apple gets to make headlines twice.
“A huge reason for it hiding it is they are hoping some unknowing person who would prefer to use Windows will turn it on, with Windows installed, and not be able to figure out how to get into Windows and be forced to use Apple’s operating system.”
This does not make sense. If you went out of your way to install boot camp, you would know how to get into Windows.
I think that Apple took it for granted that people *would* be able to figure out how to get Windows to boot on Macs. They had to have considered this before they took the decision to go with Intel. The decision to go with Intel would not have been taken lightly, and these things would have been thought through carefully. Why do they announce boot camp after an independent solution is found? Because Apple gets to make headlines twice.<i/>
They did it pretty fast after the independant solution was out, so they only made headlines once. They didn’t want the private people figuring it out to get headlines when they were successful, as that would lead to work that they couldn’t control.
[i]This does not make sense. If you went out of your way to install boot camp, you would know how to get into Windows.
OK, here’s the situation. John is going to person X’s house and wants to use their computer. They have a Mac, but John doesn’t know how to use a Mac or does not like to use Macs and would prefer to use any other operating system. As its not John’s mac, when he turns it on, he is going to end up in OS X, because there is absolutely no indicator that it is possible to boot into Windows. John thus suffers trying to deal with OS X and an unfamiliar interface while he could have been in Windows, but Apple makes it too hard to do. If you look at the other cases where people dual boot, Linux and Windows, when you turn in your computer, it always shows you a menu and lets you choose what you want, and times out after 10 seconds or something to the default, which is set to Linux by default in the Linux boot loader, and Windows by default in the Windows boot loader. Apple wants to hide the fact from someone overlooking at your Mac that you might be running a non-Apple OS as best they can so people unfamiliar are forced to try and use Macs.
I think the real truth is, bootcamp was suppost to come with the machines, but they were having problems with the bios emulation layer & making a good, usefull bootloader. Apple simply release the beta so people were not runing some sort of hybrid bootloader setup that might cause their support cost to skyrocket.
$.02
“Its really simple why Apple released it. They want to make it as difficult as possible to make Windows your primary OS choice and the community was going to make it way too easy, with stuff like providing a menu without having to press some secret key.”
Here is the documentation to Boot Camp:
http://images.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/pdf/Boot_Camp_Beta_Setup_Gu…
Take a look at page 13 of the Boot Camp documentation. It gives very simple, clear instructions on how to set Windows as the default operating system and how this can be done from either Mac OS X or from Windows itself. Doesn’t sound like trying to keep Windows from being the default to me…actually sounds like they trying to lend a hand there. The key option you speak of is for when you have a default OS set and want to boot something that is NOT the default…say OS X when Windows is the default. Further, this is consistent with the boot loading options that already come with a mac, and are actually documented to allow booting from another disk. There’s nothing secret at all.
“A huge reason for it hiding it is they are hoping some unknowing person who would prefer to use Windows will turn it on, with Windows installed, and not be able to figure out how to get into Windows and be forced to use Apple’s operating system.”
Ummm…if that can’t figure out how to get in, then perhaps they shouldn’t be using a dual boot system…too advanced for them. Of course they could just RTFM
I’ll just comment on the rest of your paranoid FUD in together now. If Apple wanted to keep people off of Windows when using Macs they very simply could have not offered Boot Camp at all. There were solutions, as you say already – why then should Apple invest anything into making the OS switching process easier? They could have kept things more difficult and stuck to their original statement when they announced the Intel switch:
After Jobs’ presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. “That doesn’t preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will,” he said. “We won’t do anything to preclude that.”
(take a look towards the bottom of: http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/hardware/soa/Apple_confirms_switch_to_…)
Let’s also keep in mind that when Apple made the switch to Intel, Microsoft had already announced that the next version of Windows (Vista) would support EFI. That would make dual booting a simple partitioning and installing process. It was only AFTER Apple announced the Intel switch that Microsoft made a statement that they were cancelling EFI support. Now that Boot Camp has been released, Microsoft will likely change their mind again as they already plan on releasing Vista Server with EFI. If anything, it looks like Microsoft are the ones that want to prohibit using alternative OSes. Try installing Windows XP after Linux is installed…XP rewrites the master boot record…no option, just XP. Instal Linux after XP, and you get an option to install a boot loader for choosing OSes…that operate in similar ways to Boot Camp.
Apple has gone out of their way to provide a FREE simple boot manager, that lets you CHOOSE which OS is in charge. If you need more than Mac OS and Windows (such as Linux as a third OS), I’ve heard of tweaks that have allowed this. You can set Windows as the default os and it will automatically boot into it. RTFM
It was only AFTER Apple announced the Intel switch that Microsoft made a statement that they were cancelling EFI support. Now that Boot Camp has been released, Microsoft will likely change their mind again as they already plan on releasing Vista Server with EFI.
MS never announced that they were cancelling (U)EFI support. They announced they they were postponing it until after Vista RTM because they wanted to have a wider sampling of implementations from different IHVs to test their implementation with before shipping.
Will this postponing keep it from doing this?
http://cultofmac.com/?p=312
I’m just sayin’, 50 Billion, time to use it….
“They want to make it as difficult as possible to make Windows your primary OS choice and the community was going to make it way too easy, with stuff like providing a menu without having to press some secret key.”
Not true at all. They make it very simple to make Windows your default OS. You can make that choice either through OS X’s System Preferences or Windows’ Control Panel.
People really need to research what it is they’re talking about here. Ignorant trolling is still trolling.
Its really simple why Apple released it. They want to make it as difficult as possible to make Windows your primary OS choice and the community was going to make it way too easy, with stuff like providing a menu without having to press some secret key.
are you kidding? if you install the latest firmware update, it adds bios/videobios stuff to the EFI firmware so that one can actually boot a windows CD, install windows, and use JUST windows if you want. I tried this just to see just after bootcamp came out. It worked like a charm. My HD was 100% windows for a few days, without Mac OS X on it at all, and without Bootcamp.
Your post is pretty much BS.
Do you use a Mac with Boot Camp loaded?
Beware! It can still crash….
http://cultofmac.com/?p=312
I’m just sayin’
can it be the software? maybe?
I actually thought the article was kind of funny. I think the author was serious about the points he was making, but his tone was somewhat tongue in cheek.
I have a PB myself, and currently run OSX at home (though I’m a died in the wool linux fan otherwise), I find the whole “think different” idea to be _least_ appropriate to Apple’s hardware and OS. Sort of like Microsoft “innovation”.
Has anyone noticed how all news are about Apple these days? Analysts write about imaginary viruses, users complain loudly about whining noises and some other folks tell us why they don’t like BootCamp. Will a thorough review of the Dock follow?
http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=sv&q=%22Apple+Dock+sucks…
allready done
and more on Windows!
http://cultofmac.com/?p=312
Done! ^_^ (wink, wink)
Could it be the OS, maybe?
He has a few fairly good points buried in that article, so it’s a shame he had to turn it into a lame troll with so many utterly stupid comments. Like calling boot camp “Boot Chump” or saying “once you start using a Mac, your IQ begins to creep downwards”, the kind of comments that would get you modded down on a forum like this.
It comes across like a blog entry by a teenager, not something I’d expect in a PC Magazine. But this is the magazine that John C. Dvorak writes for, so I suppose I shouldn’t expect much from it.
//It comes across like a blog entry by a teenager, not something I’d expect in a PC Magazine. But this is the magazine that John C. Dvorak writes for, so I suppose I shouldn’t expect much from it.//
Yet, you took the time to read it.
“Yet, you took the time to read it.”
And that’s 30 seconds of my life that I’m not going to get back…
Don’t worry, if I see anything written by him in the future I’ll remember not to bother.
You might want to write off the magazine as a whole, he’s its editor.
Boot camp just makes running Windows from a Mac possible, how useful that is really depends on your needs.
The article however seems to take serious issue with the Mac itself rather than the Boot Camp software.
He spends most the time complaining about price/performance etc. of Apple hardware and other topics that have been mostly beat into the ground.
Between this idiot and John C. Dvorak I am just glad I don’t subscribe to their magazine.
I think the C in ‘John C. Dvorak’ stands for several things like: Confused, Crazy, Crack-addict..
I’m just sayin’….
He acts like the dual boot feature is there to get Windows only people to purchase the Mac and then trick them into using OSX. It’s there for people who want to use OSX but can’t give up Windows yet.
He acts like the dual boot feature is there to get Windows only people to purchase the Mac and then trick them into using OSX. It’s there for people who want to use OSX but can’t give up Windows yet.
I’ve also heard people saying that its great because it allows people who haven’t used OS X and don’t know if they are going to like it, and if they don’t, they still have a decent computer for Windows. The fact is it makes it difficult to use Windows and tries to make OS X more convient.
The fact is it makes it difficult to use Windows and tries to make OS X more convient.[sic]
Hopefully anyone who gets this far will have already seen the many thoughtful rebuttals to your misinformed opinion on this point. If not, this would be a good time to review not only the article but also the comments and links provided by other posters.
(My italics) Sets the tone for the whole article. Or it would, if it didn’t come right at the end.
On top of that he accuses OS X of doing more – much more – to dumb down computers than Windows.
Hah!
Whilst I agree with some of the points here (over-priced hardware, vendor lock-in, &c), seriously: who’s the chump here?
I was not sure if I should take this guy seriously and should be really upset first thing in the morning with this POS “article” that I read – or – if I should laugh my head off at what an idiot this is.
I decided to do the latter and laugh like I’ve never laighed before.
If you are one of the people that reads posts BEFORE reading the article – let me save you some time – dont read it – the guy is suffering from some sort of “penis envy” (you know the guys that look down at their pants, dont feel very “manly” about themselves and go out berating others)
Did you know Boot Camp is beta software? Please wait for the final version and THEN make a review… Apple is not like Google with their eternal betas…
• Expandability:
Sure, a Mac that runs Windows looks good on paper. But how do you know that that expensive scanner, graphics card, or sound device will actually work on a BC system?
Who knows if it will work in OSX, but if it runs in Windows on a Dell, it sureoly ought to run in Windows on a Mac. Boot Camp doesn’t let make one run some specal vesion of XP with fewer drivers..
To be fair, USB and FireWire devices that work in Windows ought to work under BC.
Precisely. Dunno why that’s something he’s worried about. Just a poor excuse for another bullet point I suspect.
Have to agree with a previous poster .
I found it actually entertaining to read – actually funny .
Nice difference to all these dry & cold facts & boring opinions in many an other article .
Good article – if you have a sense of humour
– good points – trying to merge Apple & Window – doesnt really work – different OS designs & users .
The only “Boot Chump” is Jim Louderback.
Apple wants you to run OS X!!!! What will these evil-doers think of next?
This article looks interesting and actually features few good arguments in the beginning. But the second part is very unserious…
I was pretty offended by some of Jim’s comments in that article, so I emailed him directly, and he responded that the whole article was just tongue in cheek satire, and he was surprised people didn’t pick up on that.
Poor guy, he’s probably got a lot of flames to sort through today. I feel bad for not reading the whole thing and firing off a shoot-from-the-hip flame.
I just read it and it’s not really obvious he’s joking until the last paragraph or so. The majority of the rest of the article read like a compilation of troll posts from comp.sys.mac.advocacy circa 2001.
Of course, this did give me a chuckle:
The really creative computer users are the case modders who build extravagant designs to house their systems.
For some reason, that made me think of all the “cool” cases I see in computer stores now – the ones that still look like a standard computer case, but now it’s a standard computer case with a garish paintjob and some extraneous plastic crap glued to the front.
I don’t run windows, but my next mac will and I will use XP a little more because I have the option with Boot Camp.
I think this guy just needed a article to write…………go complain about some other company! Like adobe or Dell’s mp3 players…etc!!
I wasn’t going to comment here, because it’s bad to respond to inflammatory articles, but this is just outrageous. I know that it was all supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but seriously, this man needs to take an english class or two. I could only find emotional spouting-off where one would expect to find reasoned, clear cut arguments as to why it may not be beneficial to hop on the mac bandwagon.
I couldn’t even finish the article (quit about 2/3 down the second page.) It was just… stupid. I expect to see mature, thoughtful discussion coming from the media outlets I choose to read. This was just thoughtless drivel coming from a man who poo-poos macs because he isn’t exactly the target market for them.
I tell you that none, NOT A SINGLE ONE of those arguments is a novel, or creative idea, or a reason to not get a mac that didn’t exist before. OK, if you don’t want a Mac, don’t get one. I make the assertion that no combination of hardware and software, Mac, Windows, or otherwise can please everybody in every situation.
If you would like to see a line of internally consistent reasoning to counter every single one of his claims here you go: Starting with the assertion that Apple computers have their strengths and weaknesses, we can say that traditionally not being able to run Windows has been a weakness in most people’s eyes. This is no longer the case. Therefore, one of the weaknesses traditionally characteristic of Apple computers no longer exists.
I don’t care if it doesn’t run exactly like it does on any given commodity x86 PC. Given a different set of hardware even among these x86 PCs, Windows will run differently. I will assert that the difference in hardware between an Apple computer and any other Windows-running computer is well within what could be considered “normal” variations among computers intended to run Windows (henceforth “Windows PCs”.) The chipset is the same, the motherboard is the same, RAM, hard drives, optical drive, mice, keyboards, monitors— they all operate to the same specifications, and many of these components are identical to those found in Windows PCs.
The diatribe about the configurability of the computers shipped thus far is unwarranted, and certainly not in the least enlightening. The iMac, Mac Mini, and Powerb… MacBook are not intended to be upgraded. The conjecture that the Pro Desktop will not work with your hardware is purely conjecture. In response, I’ll offer my conjecture on the subject: Seeing as how Apple is not too keen on dragging along legacy technologies, he’s probably right, much of your old hardware probably won’t work under MacOS X. I’m willing to bet that Apple offers a PCI slot in the new towers, along with PCI-Express. Anything that runs under Windows in a PCI slot will still run under Windows in a PCI slot, as it would on any Windows PC, and the hardware that doesn’t run under MacOS X probably still won’t. So the score here is: Intel Mac +1 for being able to do more than before, and PPC Mac 0.
(Also, there IS an active and vibrant Mac mod community. Google for it, Mr. Louderback. It may not be exactly what you envisioned, but if you want to point out its shortcomings, do so point by point. Don’t pretend it doesn’t exist.)
In response to the comment that the Mac Mini’s graphics are slow, I say, “so what?” You buy a low-end computer, you get low-end graphics. I for one am not pleased with Apple’s decision to use integrated graphics there, so it is a strike against the Mini. In other words, it’s a strike against the Mini, as it would be a strike against any computer using integrated graphics, and something to take into account when making a purchasing decision. It doesn’t need to be afforded special attention specifically because it’s in a Mac. He himself wrote that the performance in the other Intel Macs is fine, thank you. Now he is lambasting the entry-level Mac for being a bit pokey. Uh-huh. I hope he doesn’t get away with talking out of both sides of his mouth.
I just feel that the bitching about Apple not being the all-in-all of computers is imbalanced reporting. Mr. Louderback’s real beef here is with MacOS X. It doesn’t do what he wants, so he chooses to bitch about it as if it were something new. His argument falls apart when he starts ripping on the Mac for the way it RUNS windows, and has less to bitch about than before.
I won’t even address the childish comments, ad hominem attacks on mac users, and blatant misinformation, and misrepresentation of facts. I use a mac, so I’m too snooty and uppity to deal with such base things.
I guess it’s just another “prodigy” coming from Ziff-Davis. Too bad tech journalism has gone totally down the crapper.
Peace out.
you have to think, this guy works for PC magazine. keyword there, PC. this guy is obviously a ferkin moron. I love my mac. and wont turn back as far as it goes for PCs.
i didn’t see anything worth reading on that page
Learn here how to:
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
…like anything, so PC mags can go back to talking about PCs.
Unfortunately it looks like MS related articles might be delayed yet again.
“In fact, I believe that most of today’s societal ills can be either indirectly or directly attributed to Apple. Widespread hearing loss? Blame the iPod. Carpal tunnel? Blame the Newton.”
Retardation? Blame it on the article.
Bitching that the video in a low end mac is not a rocket-ship? WTF is wrong with this guy. My Toyota is not as fast a Ferrari, perhaps he should write an article on that.
“Reliability: I don’t know about you, but when I buy a computer I want everything to work right”
I take it one step further and say…. when I use my computer, I prefer it to work right.
Is it really worth all that extra money? From where I sit, no—but a fool and his money have always been quickly parted.
From where I sit, an idiot should not get paid for his shitty articles. If I were you, I’d be pinching pennies too. I’d buy the cheapest Dell I could find. That way I could still make the payments with my unemployment check after PC kicks me to the curb.
” The really creative computer users are the case modders who build extravagant designs to house their systems.”
That is like saying Steven Spielberg is not creative because he did not take the time to paint flames on the truck he drives to work. I don’t know… perhaps he has better things to do with his creativity.
“Because I’m a firm believer that once you start using a Mac, your IQ begins to creep downwards, inversely proportional to an increase in your AAF (Apple Acceptance Factor).”
Than for heavens sake don’t switch… a negative I.Q. is probably fatal. Fortunately, your mathematics clearly state, that those of us who intuitively accept Apple are immune to this terrible attack on our mental faculties.
Is Louderback serious? Hard to tell. A brain damaged one-armed blind monkey could type a better article in WordStar. If this is some attempt at humor, that same monkey has pulled funnier things out of his ass.
He has another craptacular article here, with a typo in the first 4 words.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1916717,00.asp
“I sat in athe dark the other night, pondering the difference between broadband and electricity”
I do hope he licks them to figure out the difference.
I saw this coming when Apple went with the Wintel chip.
but tell me, is it the OS or the hardware….?
http://www.dealcatcher.com/forums/m_402248/tm.htm
http://www.eng.bu.edu/~anc/macosx_bluescreen/blue2.jpg
I was just wondering, becuase people seemed a little excited about windows on a Mac…..
I am not..
Answer: It is NOT the hardware…
This was not a smart move on the part of Apple….
Why doesnt he just tell Bill to move his office next door to his and welcome officially to Apple!
Edited 2006-05-13 14:19