[X4U] Implications of Boot Camp

[Kunga]

OEM XP Pro is only $100. Now we have a Boot Camp KILLER solution.  
Boot Camp may be known as the shortest relevant product Apple Has  
ever offered. It is IMMEDIATELY irrelevant.

And now the Parallels' solution is official. You can run Windows IN A  
WINDOW of your OS X now. This lets you run Windows ONLY when you NEED  
TO and without the cumbersome time consuming Dual Boot Camp BAD  
SOLUTION.

<http://www.parallels.com/en/news/id,8655>

<http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/mac/>

Can we all please dispense with the hysteria and enjoy your new found  
POWER.

This solution is totally safe since you can replace any infected  
setup with an uninfected setup in less than a minute. Totally  
superior solution to Boot Camp C##p.

-- 
Taylor Barcroft
New Media Publisher, Editor, Video Journalist, Podcaster, Futurecaster
Santa Cruz CA, Beach of the Silicon Valley
URL http://FutureMedia.org
RSS http://feeds.feedburner.com/FutureMedia
iTunes http://tinyurl.com/8ql87
barcroft (gizmo)
kungax (Skype)
kungag5 (iChat-AIM)


On Apr 6, 2006, at 5:32 AM, Jim Robertson wrote:

>> Thus, that user will likely have a virus on their computer within 10
>> minutes of having installed the OS and connecting to the Internet
>> unless they have proper anti-virus software. This is just the reality
>> of the Windows world.
>
> Is it REALLY that bad? I cannot imagine the entire world tolerating  
> such a
> scenario.
>
> In my case, I would imagine booting into Windows for only 3 reasons:
>
> 1. To synchronize with my PocketPC (Windows Mobile 5 edition).
> 2. To do work on local intranets at health care facilities
> 3. to upgrade software such as ePocrates that requires a desktop  
> client to
> "feed" the handheld version of the software.
>
> The third of these obviously requires an internet connection, but  
> I'd do it
> behind a router with NAT. Windows XP ships with low cost virus  
> software
> (free for basic protection, I think).
>
> Supposing one doesn't boot into Windows except when behind a  
> router, and
> then only visits https sites (NEVER receiving email or straying to the
> darker corners of the web), how risky is that scenario?
>
> I'm adding up the cost of all this, and I've discovered just how  
> expensive a
> new, shrink wrapped copy of XP Pro really is (over $300). It's not an
> inexpensive proposition, and that alone may invalidate the notion  
> of people
> "trying it" to see if they prefer the Mac OS. For example, let's  
> say I'm
> considering a new laptop. I go to www.dell.com, configure a 1.83  
> GHz Intel
> Core Duo with a DVD read/write drive, bluetooth, an 80 Gbyte drive,  
> WiFi
> card, and Windows XP Pro. It's $1766. The MacBook Pro (same speed  
> and drive)
> is $1850 if I'm smart enough to get the rebate from Amazon, but  
> then I need
> to spend another $300 or more to get XP Pro. I don't think there  
> will be
> many "lookers" taking that leap.
>
> It sounds as though the requirements are pretty stringent for the  
> Windows OS
> installation. I though perhaps I could use the XP Pro I received  
> with VPC.
> Apparently not. I have a copy of XP Home edition that's not in use,  
> but I
> don't think I'd be able to install an "upgrade" copy of XP Pro and  
> verify my
> "upgrade" on what would look to the installer like a naked drive  
> just by
> inserting the XP Home Edition (as one can do with MS Office  
> installations).