Jump to content

Will Boot Camp kill OSX?


skn
 Share

Will Boot Camp kill OSX?  

82 members have voted

  1. 1. Will Boot Camp kill OSX?

    • Yes, it will.
      3
    • No, it won't.
      72
    • Maybe. It makes some sense...
      7
    • I don't know/I have no opinion on it.
      0


24 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hi everybody,

 

I'm just wondering if Boot Camp will do more harm than good to OSX...

With Boot Camp Apple will for sure sell more Macs but that doesn't mean all new Mac owners will run OSX. On the contrary, I think most of the users will use only Windows on a nice hardware and some time later they will even remove OSX from their harddisks to release some space for Windows stuff. Only virtualization would avoid it (because of course the users would be always running OSX as their primary OS).

I think OSX is about to die, unfortunately, thanks to Boot Camp. :( (I really hope I'm wrong).

So the only way for Apple to save OSX from death would be to sell it to generic PCs or even opensource it. ;)

 

I'm not the only one to speculate on it. For those who understand Spanish, there is an interesting reading about it at Macuarium: http://www.macuarium.com/cms/macu/opinion/...dona-macos.html

 

Post your opinions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only virtualization would avoid it (because of course the users would be always running OSX as their primary OS).
I am not so sure virtualization will help. OS/2 Warp had virtualization (of sorts) for Windows 3.1 and that didn't help OS/2. Apple/Jobs is smarter than IBM though and the new Intel virtualization CPUs may run better than OS/2 ever did. Apple released Boot Camp out of economic reasons (more sales) and they will release OSX as a stand alone when they realized there may be potentially 100 million copies (number of Windows users) out there to be sold. At $100 per copy, that is a good chunk of change even for Apple. They won't release OSX too soon though, until or unless Intel Mac sales reached a critical mass (10 to 15% of PC sales?). The alternative and more unlikely scenario is that Intel Mac sales actually drops and they are forced to liquidate OSX.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way. Macs are more expensive than buying just a regular pc w/ Windows only. It wouldn't make sense for people to buy a mac just to use windows.

 

Everyone has access to a windows pc. People use them all the time. The people that use macs, choose them over a regular pc for a variety of reasons.

 

If apple were to sell osx to generic pcs or open source it, then it would cause the same problems that windows has (especially security wise - even more if it were open-sourced).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If apple were to sell osx to generic pcs or open source it, then it would cause the same problems that windows has (especially security wise - even more if it were open-sourced).

 

That's a wrong concept! Linux and BSD are opensource OS, run on generic hardware (not just PCs) and are very secure...

 

By the way, take a look at this: Why Windows Is Less Secure Than Linux

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of Apple's profits are on hardware. If all of Apple's hardware comes bundled with Mac OS X, that bundle is reflected in the purchase price. Thus, when you buy a Mac, you are buying Mac OS X as part of the deal (as well as iLife and all other bundled software). Because of this, Apple will never stop profiting off of OS X so long as people are still willing and able to buy their hardware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a visionary,,, :o

Boot Camp is already killing OSX (literally): Apple Discussions - Boot camp hosed my os x partition

Was it coded by Microsoft? :whistle:

Nah, that is from people ignoring warnings within the App and in the setup documentation not to partition with programs running in the background or to install XP on any other partition than C:. Some guy was running bittorrent while another installed XP on top of the OS X partition. This is a classic ID10T error or a PEBAK.

:star_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, that is from people ignoring warnings within the App and in the setup documentation not to partition with programs running in the background or to install XP on any other partition than C:. Some guy was running bittorrent while another installed XP on top of the OS X partition. This is a classic ID10T error or a PEBAK.

:D

 

 

haha good ole ID 10-T makes me happy every time i see one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a wrong concept! Linux and BSD are opensource OS, run on generic hardware (not just PCs) and are very secure...

 

By the way, take a look at this: Why Windows Is Less Secure Than Linux

 

Not to prolong this discussion but the reason why OS X and Linux are safer than Windows is due to the fact that their market share is virtually non-existent in comparison to Windows. Also, since Linux is open source, it means that even if an exploit is discovered, with the talents of the community, that exploit would be patched very quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I sell PCs and I think I can see some validity in this concern. PC component quality control is absolute {censored} these days. The literal majority of the time I sell a custom PC, there's a failure in the hardware somewhere (and no, it's not just me, I sell a lot of different types/manufacturers of components).

 

So to have Apple's super-reliable super-streamlined (yet proprietary) hardware might be a boon...

 

Just my inexperienced thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I sell PCs and I think I can see some validity in this concern. PC component quality control is absolute {censored} these days. The literal majority of the time I sell a custom PC, there's a failure in the hardware somewhere (and no, it's not just me, I sell a lot of different types/manufacturers of components).

 

So to have Apple's super-reliable super-streamlined (yet proprietary) hardware might be a boon...

 

Just my inexperienced thought.

 

its just because of the huge number of permutations in terms of hardware combinations, its not possible for some pc component makers to keep up.

 

ofcourse, coming back to the bootcamp discussion, it will not kill os x. no mac user is going to run windows and completely forget about os x.. people buy a mac not for the substandard hardware but for the killer os, mac users would rather smash their mac on the floor than get rid of os x and run a windows only mac.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that this is so on the opposite end. If osx is realeased running on the 64 bit machines when vista is released, do you think it will beat out microsoft and dethrone them?

 

 

personally i think the two will be neck and neck. but who knows vista may blow OS X out 10.5 of the water. That is unless OS XI comes into existance. Then things could get REAL interesting.

 

besides thier competition can do nothing but great things for all pc users mac and mic alike!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If osx is realeased running on the 64 bit machines when vista is released, do you think it will beat out microsoft and dethrone them?

 

Except that OS X already runs on 64-bit machines (the PPC G5). People seem to forget that kind of thing when they start talking about Intel for some reason.

 

Anyways, Boot Camp won't kill OS X. I bought a Mac to run the Mac OS, not Windows. I think for most people, things like Virtual PC, Guest PC, etc, will do what job they absolutely need done on Windows (which isn't a lot. I can't remember the last time I fired up VPC, save to download Windows patches).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that this is so on the opposite end. If osx is realeased running on the 64 bit machines when vista is released, do you think it will beat out microsoft and dethrone them?

personally i think the two will be neck and neck. but who knows vista may blow OS X out 10.5 of the water. That is unless OS XI comes into existance. Then things could get REAL interesting.

 

besides thier competition can do nothing but great things for all pc users mac and mic alike!

 

Well I think Vista has potential but Microsoft should get out of the past. If Vista has such extreme System Requirements, why do they even bother supporting legacy hardware? So you can run a 5 inch floppy drive on your Dual Core AMD? Probably not...

 

Microsoft could make Vista a LOT better if they just got rid of all the code bloat (which is generated by having all the driver support and backwards compatibility). If MS did something like Apple with the OS 9 -> OS X transition, people would complain.. but in the end, they would be powerless to do anything about it (given the power MS has). Windows Vista already has 50 million lines of code and will have 40% more than XP.. and people wonder why Windows is getting progressively slower and more system intensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the days of duel-boot Windows NT/Windows 95 operating systems were so much nicer. In fact, I'm surprised that Microsoft didn't learn from this when they built Windows XP. They could have easily created a "Classic" environment to run Windows 98 in for legacy support.

 

However, you can't really argue much with Microsoft for wanting backwards-compatibility in their operating systems. It's pretty much expected of them to do something of that nature, and I'm sure we all have some old software that we occasionally might want to run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft could make Vista a LOT better if they just got rid of all the code bloat (which is generated by having all the driver support and backwards compatibility).

 

Here's the thing though. Windows users DEMAND such virus opportunities, er code bloat, er backwards compatibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing though. Windows users DEMAND such virus opportunities, er code bloat, er backwards compatibility.

 

I know but my whole post is saying that MS shouldnt give a damn and just go ahead and kill legacy support. People will complain, cry and moan.. but in the end, what can they do? Go to Linux? Or they can stick with Windows XP (but MS can drop support to force PC users to move)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know but my whole post is saying that MS shouldnt give a damn and just go ahead and kill legacy support. People will complain, cry and moan.. but in the end, what can they do? Go to Linux? Or they can stick with Windows XP (but MS can drop support to force PC users to move)

 

The original intent of Vista (FOAF information, so take it with a grain of salt) was to force people to use somethiing more recent than Office 97. It was supposed to (believe it or not) kill legacy support, similar to the painful death of the G3 that Mac users are going through now (it just...won't...iWork...or...iLife...anymore).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know but my whole post is saying that MS shouldnt give a damn and just go ahead and kill legacy support. People will complain, cry and moan.. but in the end, what can they do? Go to Linux? Or they can stick with Windows XP (but MS can drop support to force PC users to move)

 

 

Isn't a lot of the legacy support gone in the 64bit XP? I know it doesn't support 16bit code and I assume a lot of the old drivers have no 64bit equivilent. I assume that the 64bit Vista, which will probably become the predominant version towards the middle and end of it's product cycle, will wipe out a lot of legacy stuff.

 

I think the best way to cut down on stuff would be to make the OS a bit more modular, so the drivers and code needed for certain functions are present on the installer if you need them, but they don't make it to your hard disk, or are ever availible for library functions at all if you don't need them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...