USA Today moron: "Boot Camp to cause exodus to Windows"

As soon as I saw Boot Camp actually work with my own two eyes, I ran out and replaced my IBM laptop in the office with a MacBook Pro, which is what I am typing on right now!

Rodimus.. 8125 runs windows, doesn't it? Try a PDA that doesn't. most sync just fine -

This is really such a shame. I can't believe that anybody out there would actually believe this crap.

Rodimus Prime,

(and anybody who might kantor*, thus establishing relevancy to the article for this posting : )

You are very fortunate to be say that you are (a) self-employed and (b) have a computer budget, reasonably-proportioned though it is--all at the same time. Congratulations to you! (I am completely serious.)

But because of this situation, you are in the enviable position of being able to justify just about any computer budget that you can afford because you not only get to feel the pinch of the initial purchase but also get to feel the burn of the recurring costs caused by downtime.

Me? I work for a DJIA member company where my computer downtime doesn't cost me any income, so I don't care how many times it crashes, or needs to be updated, patched, and restarted. It doesn't cost me a cent and I get to gripe about Windows some more. (I do have a Mac on my desk courtesy of a very generous supervisor. It sits next to a Dell which has been off for 9 months. My downtime? Five minutes for each system update, so 30 minutes at most during that time.)

You, on the other hand, probably only get paid for work product that you generate with that computer. (And even if you don't, let's say that you do just for argument's sake so that others can see the point.) When your computer is down, rebooting, downloading the latest security patch, being invaded by a Word macro virus, or otherwise not doing your bidding, you are losing the use of a valuable resource. Because of this direct relationship between computer availability and income, it becomes very easy to calculate how long that initial savings will last before it becomes a liability.

In your case, you have even provided some data in your second post. Four XP installs in the past calendar year at two hours per install at, say, $100 per hour and you've eaten up $800, more than enough to justify the purchase of a more expensive and more reliable computer/OS.

Is the Mac the best, most reliable solution for you? Do the economics of my hypothetical situation even look similar to your reality? I don't know, really, especially if syncing with your PocketPC is critical to generation of income for you. And, to be fair, I have had failures with Mac hardware: two iBook G4s of four (a failed CD and a failed HD) and one iMac G5 (exploding caps) of five. But I'll still never buy a Windows box!

My point is merely to look at the after-purchase economics as well as the initial sticker price, and you are perhaps more able to do that than most salaried geeks--like me--are.

Good luck with your decision--I truly envy the situation you find yourself in.
Bill

* kantor |kan'-tr>verb [intrans.]
abandon one's operating system in favor of another one, esp. as a direct result of poor or misguided reasoning and/or dogma
ORIGIN see original posting

Andrew is obviously ignorant that most Mac users have used Windows before and decided that Mac OS X is better. So good that Windows has to use some of OS X GUIs.

Well... I believe the author did write this piece in a provocative way...but...The example of the enterprise world is just correct... I work on a windows only enterprise (Easier integration with 18.000 thousand desktops of every software there is) and believe-me I would not buy a MAc computer for my workers speccially because it is more expensive,it is a new environment, for my Admins as for my users to learn (even if it is simpler and more secure, as I will have to maintain the windows aplications, I am just adding up costs)

Boot Camp isn't pointed at these folks... In the enterprise level boot camp isn't needed... The only people that the company is going to offer a macbook pro are the "administrators" and those have nice secretaries to do the "adminisitrative " work.

On the other side, there will be some "migration" attempts from windows users, that now have a "safetty net" for buying a new platform. I speak for my self because I like gaming (flight sims specially and those do not exist for consoles... So I am STUCK in windows for my Hobby)

I run windows XP from the day it came out (even tried it before) and I have needed a format once... and it was because I Switched to a AMD 64 platform... and believe me... I am an instaler freak... I try every game demo I can find... and Anti spyware/virus software doesn't bother me as they Auto update... just like MacOSX has its updates...

So this guy is a "jerk", but not entirely... he has some valid points for enterprise-99%windows work , and after you play a windows game or run you windows only application under bootcamp, you might find yourself spending more time on windows@mac than macosx@mac...

So.. at work the migration form macos->windows would be drops of water, but at home, and depending on your hobbies... it could get to a river...

Now what would start a heavy migration on the opposite direction (oceanic) would be a simple thing that Apple would spend almost no money on... It is funny no one mentions it...

How about a MacOSX live cd with limited/no support for people try it out on their computers?what would you think the reactions would be after john doe experiences MAC OSX on his DELL?

michaelb (#13) and ecne (#27) have captured my sentiments too.

I recently purchased a new Wintel notebook (replaced an old Wintel notebook) so that I could run some financial software software. I have nearly gone "postal" on several occasions trying to wade through all of the alerts, shovel-ware reminders and other intrusive affirmation pop-ups just to get back to my work. I believe Microsoft thinks of this as some modern day manifestation of the old arcade game, "Asteroids". I'm counting the days till my family finds me jumping up & down on my Wintel notebook raving like a lunatic.

so much confusion...

Macs being more expensive than their comparably-equipped competitors is misleading. Notice that Kantor had to boost the price of a Mac purchase (to support his "more expensive" argument) by accessorizing with an XP license.

When comparing features to price, Macs are extremely competitive. That's not even considering the value added by Mac OS X itself, and all of the pre-installed Apple software. If people bothered to look for a moment, it would be obvious.

The only area where the Mac gets beat is with "commodity," eMachines-class hardware. And in that case, well, you get what you pay for. But you aren't out of the jungle there... it is practically a requirement that you purchase antivirus software for windows -- an added expense that mister Kantor glossed over. Not to mention, the outrageous license cost for a copy of XP Pro (the only version that matches up with OS X).

Now, it is true that MS doesn't release significant updates to Windows that often (it's like, every 5-10 years or so?), and that might mitigate the total cost of ownership of a windows box. But, the trend is, with every major upgrade of Windows, you'll probably need to upgrade your hardware along with it. Most of the folks running XP upgraded to it by purchasing new hardware. Vista will require the same, and a cheap commodity PC won't cut it. On the Mac side, my four year old powerbook can easily run 10.4, and 10.5 will be a breeze. I've seen G3 Powerbooks running 10.4 extremely well. Macintosh hardware investments go a lot further.

And as for building a PC, it's a good idea for a hobbyist or enthusiast... and if your time has no value. I can guarantee you, higher than 90% of the windows user base not only has no knowledge about how to build their own PC (heck, I meet people nearly every day that aren't sure what a hard drive or RAM is/looks like), they have no desire to build their own PC. That territory is reserved for the geeky elite. I could build my own, but I have better things to do with my time, especially when a company like Apple can build a computer better than I ever could.

So, in short, Macs are less expensive, because you'll spend less cash over the life of the computer than with a commodity PC, and it will last you much longer anyway.

Kantor makes an interesting comparison between the Apple mini and the Dell PC, which costs $200 less than the Dell. Nevermind the mini is perfect for the Windows switcher who already owns a montior, a keyboard, a mouse, and a printer but wants a faster computer. Ah....

Kantor also assumes that both companies offer comparable service after the sales. And HE IS RIGHT! Apple has slid back to crApple status with its poorly designed and built laptops. If Apple honored its service agreements, then all those iPod profits would dissapear in a haze of repair bills.

Yes, in year from now, I will dump Apple for Windows because I can a better built, comprabably serviced machine.

^19

I recently re-installed OSX and it was really easy to do.