Who ever heard such nonsense about BootCamp? It's about the hardware, stupid!

Home > News and Views > Who ever heard such nonsense about BootCamp? It's about the hardware, stupid!

Who ever heard such nonsense about BootCamp? It's about the hardware, stupid!

Date Created: 11 Apr, 2006, 01:26 PM

It's been very amusing to watch and hear the various pundits, commentators, bloggers and editors mapping out their territorial opinions about the meaningfulness of Apple's release of BootCamp.

Each seems to have anted up to the table, called or raised in order to stake out an individual, not-said-before stance to garner the attention of readers' eyeballs or listeners' stirrups and anvils.

It's been quite a while since we saw such heated commentary. Perhaps not since the announcement of Microsoft's Vista delay also brought forth such merriment and concern just a few weeks before.

Merriment from the Microsoft nay-sayers who point to a poisonous internal organisational culture hemorrhaging talent; concern from others for those PC makers betting their Christmas paychecks and bonuses on having something new to offer potential buyers at the end of 2006; and sage heads within Microsoft pointing to quality control issues saying that if it's not ready to ship, it doesn't ship.

Well, I suppose that's one version of quality control.

Meanwhile, down in Cupertino, Apple is giving us a hint at what its next iteration of OS X will contain, this being the ... let me count: 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5 - oh yes, the sixth version of OS X since its commercial release in 2000. OK, 2002, when Jaguar became the first OS X version which arguably allowed one to remove Classic (OS 9) from one's Mac without shedding a tear of grief or remorse.

BootCamp is a public beta to help Apple sort out the bugs, right? Before making it a part of Leopard (10.5). If anyone really thinks it will be part of a dual-boot set-up, it means they haven't spent any serious time with Apple products, nor studied the company apart from reading PC magazine.

I have no doubt whatsoever that it will run simulatneously with Leopard and offer all the expected file swapping and clipboard sharing long time users of Virtual PC took for granted, albeit glacially.

And Apple won't just leave it at that. It might not be in 10.5, and perhaps more likely in 10.5.1, but I do expect a variation on the virtualisation theme. An Apple twist, if you like, as unexpected as the release of BootCamp last week.

For some, this release was not newsworthy. So what, they asked: Someone is going to buy a Mac to run one business application they can't find for the Mac? Pleeease!

No, this group will buy the cheapest PC they can with a long warranty and best after-sales service, and leave it at that.

But my perception is that there is a pent-up demand borne of Windows frustration for a machine/OS that works. That it looks like a Mac, with its design pedigree is a bonus. Perhaps for some it is the cake, and not the icing.

Let me put it this way:

When I say the word, "Macintosh", what do you see in you mind's eye?

And now, when I say the word, PC, what do you see?

For the first, how many saw hardware you want to own? A MacBook Pro, a 20" iMac, a desktop Mac? Perhaps the Dock (nah!).

For the second, how many of you saw a Windows desktop? Or an open Microsoft application, like Word, or Excel, or Powerpoint?

It IS about the hardware, not the OS, you see. So many people know of Apple's hardware, but have yet to see, touch or handle OS X. They know it looks different, or they've read some Windows pundits who say there's little difference now (and even less with Vista) and others who say there's a steep learning curve (ain't choice a marvellous thing), or perhaps they've seen Mac-owning friends tootling away on multiple tasks, none of which has to do with setting up anti-virus or malware software.

The idea of BootCamp in any way turning non-Mac people onto OS X is very small potatoes, and the thought of it being used to sell OS X for use on joe-shmo PCs is ludicrous. It's about the box, not the software. What's the bet Apple makes more money on-selling iLife and iWork updates (together coming out USD30 more than OS X when sold from the shelves) than OS X itself?

I mean, Apple doesn't even make you register the darn OS when you install it; no 20-code numbers to fill in, and send off to Central Control to make sure you are a legitimate owner. It's about the hardware.

Whatever the case, I want to say there's a huge amount of intrigue out there about Apple, the Mac, and maybe OS X in the face of Vista's delays and Xp's security holes and incessant updates.

That intrigue has been pushed along by the iPod economy putting Apple products into the hands of PC users, thus lowering their resistance to having an Apple branded product in their home, much less their pocket.

Now one must ask the question about the circumstance of Apple preparing itself to be the one and only hardware manufacturer to allow multiple OS installations. Was it really the case that IBM couldn't deliver G5 chips for Powerbooks and that its road ahead didn't stretch far enough to the horizon while Intel's did?

Meaning the opportunity to run Windows on Apple hardware was a happenstance, as disruptive as it may soon become? After all, did Apple really think they would plunder the marketplace as thoroughly and quickly with the iTunes/iPod combo as it has? Did anyone in Apple even dream it was possible?

So let me ask the same about Windows on an Intel powered Mac. If OS X has been ported to Intel-based machines all this time until Apple was ready to switch chip makers in case IBM/Motorola couldn't deliver the goods (basic risk management contingency planning, no?) then was the plan to place Windows on a Mac always sitting there on the same self, filed under Risk Management Strategies, also?

I think so.

The timing of course is something partially in Apple's control. It could have waited longer to release Bootcamp, but after the means to run Windows on a Mac was published and verified, why the need to hold back? Take the higher ground, and bring forward the release to make it easier (not easy, however) for the average interested Mac user to also install Windows, albeit with severe limitations.

This also brought out the virtualisation software developers who perhaps would have liked more lead time, but still, it's out there now, pointing to various possibilities with Leopard in a few months time.

So this is about Apple selling more hardware, and occupying a greater mindset than it already does. I wish someone would do a ratio calculation of brand awareness and market share, comparing Apple to other PC brands, and throw in newspaper column inches or the equivalent in the blogosphere to check the proportions for good measure.

For myself, I'm in no rush to run Windows on my Powerbook even if its PPC chip could do so. I have a stand alone Windows box, running software restricted to Windows, and so be it. I use it for a few hours a day, and the rest of the time, I'm on the Mac. It's a good working compromise - a realistic one - probably shared by many.

But for those about to engage in an upgrade cycle, not by bunging in a new motherboard - no-one in corporate life does that, do they? - but by the purchase of a current model PC, the siren's seductive call of "Get a Mac" must be ringing loudly in many ears.