It wasn't a rhetorical question we posed on April 5, the day Apple Computer announced it was fielding a first beta of "Boot Camp," software that would allow Intel-based Mac users to dual-boot Windows XP and Mac OS X. We really wanted to know who out there in Windows land was interested in Boot Camp and why.

The idea of dual-booting Windows and the Mac OS sounded rather kludgey, to this user. As Microsoft Watch readers know, I admire the Mac OS look and feel. I think Apple hardware is stunning, compared to my dowdy old ThinkPad. But I am a Windows user, through and through. I cannot get used to the Mac. I don't need any apps that run on the Mac only. So I was curious who out there was willing to put up with the pain of switching between operating systems in order to run on a spiffier machine. Why not just rely on virtualization software to run Windows and/or Linux atop the Mac OS?

We got an earful, from enterprise customers, SMB users, educators, geeks, nerds and everyone in between. The feedback ran roughly 90 percent in favor of the Boot Camp approach, and 10 percent against.

Here are just a few of the many responses we received, some of which we've edited for length:

I'm an avid user of Windows and have had a lot of success with .Net web development, but recent developments in open source technology (i.e. Ruby on Rails, Python frameworks, etc…) have me curious why I should be so tied to MS. Would I rather shell out for a new version of Visual Studio just to get standards compliant code and other neat little tricks, or spend my money on a great, dual-boot laptop and get awesome tools like TextWrite for $50?

I was very excited about Longhorn/Vista but I lose enthusiasm with every feature that's removed (virtual folders, WinFX) and release delay. It just makes me wonder what Apple's got up their sleeve for OS X.5. I bet it's something killer…

Todd Boteler

The lack of MS Project and Visio on the Mac are a major stumbling block
for many enterprise users. I run Virtual PC just to have access to those apps. There are pretty good alternatives to Visio, however I haven't found an acceptable replacement for Project.

The dual-boot environment is of limited interest, in that I need to run Project at the same time as the rest of my Mac environment, so I'll continue to use Virtual PC, and hope that access to the Intel hardware will improve its performance.

Gregg TeHennepe

Sr. Manager, Systems Administration

Information Technology

The Jackson Laboratory

Bar Harbor, Maine

I think the question that you should really ask is this: 'Who really
>wants to shutdown and reboot into XP when they want to run a windows application?' or "Who wants two different operating systems on their computer whether it's X/XP, XP/linux, or XP/2000?" Isn't is mostly hardcore users (geeks, programmers, hobbyists) who need this? Aren't most corporate users in one environment all of the time? Dual
environments makes corporate IT deparments cringe ("can't just ghost
and image that pc, can we ted?")

There are many use cases for dual boot, but it seems that
virtualization is the holy grail that will lead the corporate market to
consider Mac OS on the desktop with Windows XP/Vista in a window for a few apps.

JoeD

From 2000-2005, I was all about the PC, because they were cheap, I'd love to tweak them, and i'd even build them from the ground up. Mac's proprietary and prices haunted me.

In April 2005, I switched to mac going all out with a Dual G5. It was the best thing I ever did, and coming from a guy who was pretty tech savvy, it was a huge surprising leap.

Now there's the thought of putting Windows XP on Mac. PC hardware was never my beef... it was software, and being both print and web designer, I would have a lot of programs open. I've realized that Windows has been build on the same backbone since 1981 and other than a gamer aspect, I'm confused on why people would want that piece of crap on a Mac.

What should be happening is the other way around. We should be developing a Dual boot OS on the PC, having OS X run on those machines. In all honesty, when you run XP on a mac, you're polishing a turd. Windows Registry is the issue.

Let's work on getting Mac OS X to run on a PC, so I can afford the new Intel Duo core processor, and not have to pay $2500 for a Apple laptop (and just buy a Dell for half the price).

Dominic De Lello

Freelance web/graphic designer

Dominic Design

www.dominicdesign.com

I am a true lover of mac hardware. But at present i don't have the enough money to buy a mac destop because in india mac mini costs Rs80000 when compared to US cost. If it comes down to 40000 - 50000 definitly i would go for mac. And another thing, to make apple more popular in india there must be more sales and service center like other brands has.

Radhakrishnan

QA Engineer

I'm tempted, and I don't know why?! I have the hardware, and un-used licensed XP code. Maybe it's the Everest syndrome, 'because it's there.' I swore I'd never sully my MAC 'superior computing experience'. But now that it's possible (and easy), I want to try it. Somebody stop me!!

Ed Cowen

TTD Enterprises LLC

("Who Wants Windows on Macs?" Page 2)

I am a former Windows user and have found a few belligerent companies
not willing to allow us Mac users to use or access their systems via
web etc. Especially in the construction industry, even though there
are several architects running Mac only shops. There are some
companies that will only support IE ver. x and above effectively
locking Mac users out, claiming it is the best supported and over all
most used browser, guess they haven't heard of Firefox! Just idiotic,
but for that reason only I would like XP, otherwise You can keep it!
Mac is much more stable, and in our offices we find it far more
productive. A LOT LESS down time and NO jerking around with the
"system" . It just works better, period.

Shawn Brown

General Manager

CS Becker Holdings, LLC

York, PA

This sucks. Why would a software developer write software for a Mac when this comes out?

Kevin Watterson

Minneapolis, MN

I am interested, not because I want to run a lot of Windows apps and spend lots on time in Windows (for the record, I hate Windows since I converted to Mac 4 years ago), but because I'm in the financial services industry and all industry applications (and plenty of web sites) REQUIRE that I have access to a Windows machine. I've used Virtual PC for the last couple of years, but it's slow using some applications and Internet Explorer.

I think you'll find plenty of people like me that love OS X but need periodic access to Windows for specific applications.

George E. Johnson II

Senior Partner

Lighthouse Strategic Advisors, LLC

Yep! Windows on Mac is fine! Now I can dump the old PC I have! I'll still use Mac OS X as my primary OS, as I don't trust Windows for anything important (online shopping, e-mail, surfing, banking or IRA maintenance).

Mike Rowland

Newport News, VA

The officially required OS in my administrative unit is Windows and I use a Mac. This just made my problem less contentious.

Robert O'Connor

Administrative Information Services

Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA

What I'd like is to simultaneously run Mac OS X and windows. That way I can extract data from the program running in windows and use it on my Mac to generate reports and documents and perform further analysis. Also, I don't want to shut down Mac OS just to run windows. I currently only reboot Mac OS every few months when an update comes out.

John Konopka

("Who Wants Windows on Macs?" Page 3)

A MacIntel Mini is next on my buying list and I'd install XP out of
sheer curiosity, but "A Word for the Wise" gives me the willies.
Might wait for Virtualisation or such. Something that would let me
run Win apps without the worries.

Ian Orchard

MacWorX

I also don't share the belief that this is Apple's big chance to expand the user base. I'm guilty too of being comfortable with the status quo, in most things. Regardless of what you're talking about (the continual reelection of political incumbents come to mind), most
people will not change. At this time next year, I doubt OS X (10.5 - the next version) will cause more than 2-3% of Win users to switch.

I think you can probably tell by now that I have a life beyond Apple, and don't believe that Steve Jobs is a God. Window users can be
idiots, but sometimes the accusation of Apple users being part of a
cult doesn't seem too far from the truth.

Jay

I'm considering boot camp -- I'm currently a PC user who has never owned a MAC. After supporting sqlserver all day I relax via
graphics/photography.

As a photographer I'm thinking of converting to the MAC but my investment in 3D, image editing, and database software for the PC is
high. Some titles I have the MAC version but others are only for the PC. Until I convert all key software I'd dual boot.

Steve Cockerill

I'm surprised you aren't interested. A more secure OS. Added protection in case a virus runs amok. What kind of company runs only MS for everything and doesn't try to have little diversity in the
ecosystem; just in case?

Our company is small -- 10 - 15 employees -- and runs three OS' and is
trying to add more "internet only" boxes with Linux. And of course
add a couple of more macs -- btw that's what most of the employees
want anyway.

As we grow, we will grow away from windows until Microsoft shows that
It can keep up with the competition. XP is not up to Tiger and Linux is just plain cheaper. There are many reasons to want this dual boot
capability and if you can't see it, I'm not sure you are trying to look
at computer purchases from a small company's point of view.

necniv

This actually makes the Mac platform a heck of a lot more appealing.

I'm a Mechanical Designer. Not an industrial designer. I need my CAD application to talk to my office suite, and my company's MRP package. The largest market-share apps in the mechanical design market are CATIA (Chrysler automotive), UGS (GM, and now Ford), AutoCAD & Inventor, ProEngineer, and SolidWorks. I don't know of any of those apps that have a Mac version. We're talking hundreds of thousands of seats, maybe a million± (?). I'm pretty sure that Ashlar Vellum does not have that kind of installed base.

So the way the new dual-boot Mac helps is by bridging both environments.

The only remaining question I have is how long do we have to wait before Apple picks up AMD's X2 and Opteron lines so we can see a Mac with serious performance.

Thomas Harvey

Mechanical Designer

Sani-Matic Inc.

Madison, WI

("Who Wants Windows on Macs?" Page 4)

I personally believe that the real story will be when Apple finally realizes that it should make OS X installable on any Intel platform. Then we would truly have 2 useable desktops.

I have speculated for some time that Apple would have to support Windows on their Intel hardware. I have also surmised that it (the hardware platform) was really just a launching pad to the millions of existing Intel boxes out there running Windows. I will not be surprised if – in addition to supporting Dual Boot on Mac's – Leopard is also installable on newer Dual Core Intel PC's with support for older Intel chipsets "coming soon."

Were this to happen, we would then have a viable *nix desktop that could be used in place of Windows and still be useable. The Office issues goes away as does the Exchange/Outlook issue. Office for Mac and Entourage are extremely useful and allow for corporate interoperability with their Windows based counterparts.

Apple is finally seeing the light – yes they make sexy hardware, but they also make excellent software. And I can guarantee you that the margin is in the Software!

Morgan E. Nelson

Manager – IT

The Boot Camp feature takes the risk out of trying a Mac. It's a great move for Apple, and I would expect to see shipments increase greatly. Every time I pass by a Mac store, I go in to play with the computers. But I've been reluctant to buy one. What if I can't find the software I need? What if I can't get it to work on my network? This tool totally takes the fear factor out of the equation. If I don't like the Mac, I can always boot XP.

What I would really like to see Apple and Microsoft do in the long term, is to do a Mac subsystem for XP (similar to the Unix and Netware subsystems currently available). This would let Mac and Windows applications run side-by-side at full speed. No emulation. No dual booting.

The Boot Camp utility is a great way to get Macs in the door in more homes, and especially in businesses. However, the Mac is still not suitable for high end servers. The performance hit of the GUI and Darwin running on BSD running on top of Mach is just too many layers with lots of extra overhead (often 6-8 jumps for a single system call). They could really streamline things by making the OS just another subsystem for Windows. This would open up a huge number of server applications. The port of .NET to the Mac would also be a big boost.

Ed Hill

Miami, FL

I am one person who is very interested in dual booting the two OSes. The first reason is that while I build all my own PC's, laptops are still not practical to build, and no one makes a better looking laptop or all-in-one than Apple. I would love a Macbook Pro that can run Windows. Second, I like OS X. I am still most at home on Windows, but sometimes OS X is fun just for change. Having both on one machine is long over due. With Boot Camp, my next computer will surely be a Macbook Pro, or maybe even an iMac.

Scott Michael

University of Georgia

I love Macs and linux.

I hate microsoft and refuse to use it as oftern as I can. My real problem come for 2 reasons: 1: Games; 2: internet explorer.

I write web programs for a living and I need to verify my program with IE from
time to time. This means I need IE on a microsoft OS.

I also like to play games on computers and it's hard to get all the games on MAC OS X
as fast as they com out on windows.

If I had a laptop I could reboot into windows XP for games and Website testing
I could convert that PC to a full time linux box.

David Rodal