A few days ago I mentioned—almost in passing—Apple’s Boot Camp. As expected whenever Apple does, well, anything the Internets have been abuzz with punditry. First off I’d like to direct your attention to the haters, starting with CNet Australia’s Asher Moses’ piece, “Bunk Camp: Apple Gets It Wrong.” It bears mentioning that Moses’ article spawed from another CNet tidbit from the “Well Hello Duh” files titled “Dare I Say This Aloud? Boot Camp is a Gimmick.”

I realize that, coming from me, it may be difficult to reconcile that I might take exception to Moses’ arguments. But note that I don’t buy into just everything Apple does; in fact up until the Boot Camp announcement I was pretty underwhelmed by the whole Intel switch. I’m the first to admit that Apple has its faults; it is only that they are capable of really impressive technology and occasionally accomplish leaps forward in consumer products that makes me a “Mac Guy.” This is not an apology, just a clarification.

But let me cut to the point here. After rambling on for a while about how Boot Camp requires a reboot to use the other operating system (duh), he says:

Rather than enticing existing Windows XP users to switch, Boot Camp will be primarily attractive to current OS X users that are lusting after certain Windows XP applications, such as games. This makes sense—they’re already accustomed to performing most tasks on OS X, and only need to switch over to Windows when they feel the urge to game.

Once again, I reiterate. “Well, duh!” What all these XP adherents completely fail (possibly due to blissful ignorance, possibly because of untreated fevers) to grasp is that while Windows and Linux folk continue to preach about the invisibility of operating systems and the apathy of the average consumer to what actually runs the programs they need, OS X users are smug in their knowledge that an OS doesn’t have to be much of anything but when it is a smooth, well designed program in itself it makes using all those other programs so much more pleasant.

Does Moses honestly think the 3% of computer users who choose Macs put up with idiot web designers, incompatibility, sluggish game support, expensive hardware from a single manufacturer and the constant badgering by the other 97% just so we can be “different?” Of course not. We know something about what it is like to use a system that works. I was talking to HB the other day about his switching experience and he noted, “What’s strange is that I’m so used to Windows and how everything is convoluted and takes 400 tries to get it right that when I try to do something new on the Mac, I spend a lot of time trying all the hard ways first only to eventually figure out that it’s the easiest thing in the world.” And he’s right: On OS X, simple things are simple. It’s usually only the fact that we’ve been trained for years by Microsoft that simple things are a pain in the neck that makes using a Mac challenging. It’s not the system design, it’s years of poor conditioning.

So no, it doesn’t matter that Boot Camp is a gimmick or that it could be better if it was some sort of virtual machine. Moses’ “thesis” seems to be that Boot Camp should have been a virtual machine. Listen to the madness:

To most users, the operating system is simply a means to an end—a basis for running their favourite applications. So the real potential lies in allowing Windows XP to be run inside Mac OS X, enabling users to execute Windows and Mac applications side-by-side without rebooting. This day could be closer than you think, too, thanks to a technology called virtualisation.

Oh really? Closer than I think? Like how about, I dunno, years ago?

The whole point is that VMs are slow. You can’t run games in virtual machines because they need full, uninterrupted access to the system resources. VMs are cool, don’t get me wrong, but being able to dual-boot is a huge bonus that has been a pipe dream for people who actually, you know, have a clue as to what they’re talking about for a long time. I mean, if you want to nitpick Boot Camp, maybe pick on something that is actually a problem.

Bullet the Blue Links

• Why don’t spiders spin when dangling from a single strand of web? Scientists don’t know, either. They’re trying to figure it out, though.
• Know what would be awesome? Buying a $500 graphics card that will be obsolete in 10 months. Man I love that.
• I admit that while the 10% or whatever that they take is kind of atrocious, I really dig those little Coinstar machines. Now they do iTunes music cards, which is kind of pointless but cool anyway. Honestly if it weren’t for the fact that we have to use quarters to do our laundry I bet I could finance a vacation with the amount of spare change we collect in a month.
• Since “controversial” usually means “tasteless,” this article on GamePro about the most controversial print ads for video games shouldn’t be much of a mystery: It’s tasteless. Kids, don’t click that link! The funny thing is I remember seeing all but the Gameshark example (and honestly, aside from her outfit being fairly skimpy I don’t see the big deal there) and in every case thinking, “Ooh, someone’s going to get a nasty letter for that.” I totally called it.
• You know, the more I hear about what Nintendo is doing with the DS, the more impressed I am. Downloadable content? For free? Sure! Now they have a locator for the Download Stations. Sweet.
• Nik pointed me to an interesting article yesterday about the offensiveness of the word “midget” referring to people with dwarfism. This is somewhat intriguing to me because after watching the first episode of F/X’s “Black. White.” a few weeks ago Nik and I were talking about what gives words their power: Is it the words and the concepts behind them from the perspective of the speaker or is it the weight and impact granted them by the listener? Discuss.