Boot Camp from a Windows user perspective

Scot Finnie has written a piece on Boot Camp, from the perspective of a regular Windows user.

As the subtitle says, he likes what he finds, but I have to provide my own comments to some of his summing at the end.

First of all is this comment:

Microsoft's customizable Start menu is in every way the analog of OS X's Apple menu, but you can't customize the Apple menu.

The Apple menu in non-OS X Apple's was always customizable, but the one in OS X isn't without additional tools. Whether you think this is a good or bad thing depends on your point of view, but it isn't the only place for customization. One of the things I like about the Apple Menu is that it is now a menu about the OS, not just a dump point for everything that didn't have a better place to go.

The problem with the Start Menu in Windows is that it can become horrendously cluttered, particularly when program groups include every README and text document. I know from bitter experience that the sheer quantity of options in the Start Menu is confusing - diagnosing problems down the phone can be a bit hit and miss when the user has to select between 40 items when all you want is for them to open the Control Panels.

Second is this opinion:

Another change Apple should make is to build cheaper hardware. The company's industrial design has always been first class. On the MacBook Pro, the Apple logo is made of a translucent material that glows because it allows light from the LCD's backlight to pass through. The LCD cover and bezel comprise the thinnest computer LCD I've ever seen. Engineering and manufacturing hardware with these aesthetics costs a lot of money -- money that enterprises and small businesses just aren't willing to have passed along to them.

As a small business, and an advisor to other small businesses, I can tell you that the premium paid for a product that works, breaks down less frequently and has significantly fewer support issues (and I mean from a gamut of security through to random crashes and odd events) is worth every single penny.

Many people will tell you that buying one pair of boots at $100 is more efficient than buying ten pairs at $10 each. I'm not saying that applies wholesale on either side of the equation, but I have more issues with my own and my clients cheap PCs and Windows than I do for Mac OS X machines.

I don't want to start a war on which is better, this is my opinion based on 15 years of working with both platforms and environments. During that time, most of my PCs have died (although a Dual PIII box is still running happily), while my wife's years-old iMac, my original model iBook and, just for comparison, my 20 year old Sun IPC are still running fine.

Apple is building a Maserati instead of a Ford Model T.

Good - I want Apple to build a Maserati instead of a Ford Model T. Actually, I'm happy with them building a Maserati in preference to almost any car that might have been made this century (sorry, I couldn't resist that!).

There is a reason Maserati, Porsche and Mercedes still make cars and still in business - it's because people want to buy the better quality and better engineered vehicles.

The same is true with computers.

Yes, we'd all like to see them cheaper, in the same way we'd all like to see everything we buy cheaper, but the margins and differences between Apple and other Intel based machines are much lower than they used to be.

But what if the company set its sights on building a low-cost "Business Mac"? I'm not talking about the ubiquitous white box computer, because that wouldn't be a Mac. But isn't Apple smart enough to engineer something with a modicum of style that doesn't cost that much to build?

I've heard this argument many times, but there are options out there. The Mac Mini is a good example, and I'm sure if you wanted a volume purchase then Apple would offer you a reasonable discount. Up until the Intel announcement, the eMac made a phenomenally good desktop machine for the majority of workplace tasks. There are rumors that Apple might produce a similar, possibly even flat panel, unit. Let's hope so.

However, making cheaper hardware means sacrificing quality, and I don't think that is what Apple is about

More to the point, why would Apple want to make cheaper hardware - just so people can run Windows on their cheap Apple Mac?

That is definitely not what Apple is about.

In the same way that Maserati do not try to compete with Ford on commodity cars, Apple are not trying to compete with Dell, or Gateway, or others. Apple understand that there are - and will probably always be - customers willing to buy a premium product for a premium price, and in response, they get a quality engineered machine and a class-leading OS.

Despite these (I'll admit, minor and maybe very personal opinion-related) issues, Scot has done a good job here, and I'm impressed both that he found the system so easy to use and that he obviously likes OS X.

Perhaps the process wasn't completely Windows XP-sided afterall.