I never understood the whole point of using Windows programs on an Apple or Linux computer when you could just install Windows without having to worry about compatibility.
So I'm to assume that your reboot times are measured in single-digit seconds, and that you don't mind rebooting in order to run a program from a separate system, and that you're just fine with not being able to run programs from two systems at once?
Virtualization is popular because it has concrete benefits that dual-OS setups
can never achieve. Hell, this was even recognized by Microsoft, who built special integrated features into XP mode of 7 Pro(+) such as having the virtualized programs appear in the main window of the host OS to stop workflow from breaking.
Being required to reboot every time you need to switch to a program from the other OS is definitely a workflow break. If not required, it's literally a waste of time (as virtualization can get you the same effect in less time). In many cases, that matters.
I also never understood owning Mac's, period.
And I don't understand how some people like eating onions, but you don't see me going around into conversations mentioning onions telling people they shouldn't eat them because -I- think they taste bad.
They're being marketed as "not-PC's", but that's just a fat lie - they're PC's like any other.
What's that, companies run misleading advertisements? Welcome to earth, friend. Apple's run misleading advertisements forever, and so have other companies. Look at almost any advertisement and you'll see companies using weasel words and vague phrases to try to get customers thinking that their product is new, or that the competitor doesn't have X feature (when it very well might).
However, this shouldn't reflect negatively on your opinion of the customers, that's just ignorant. Do you go around to people who buy their gas from BP and blame them for the oil spill? Do you go around to customers of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and blame them for the current US economic crisis?
In this day and age when the great majority of applications is released for two or more systems at the same time
Majority is false. A large amount of popular applications, yes, but not a majority of the total. I was on Ubuntu as my main OS for months, and almost all the DS and PSP-centric tools I had were running through WINE. The popular applications people think about (major browsers, communication tools like messengers and skype) are actually a very tiny amount of all the programs that are out there.
And let me tell you something; the majority of programs required in the workplace and school are NOT firefox and skype.
Many businesses still deal with ancient programs that won't run on newer versions of Windows, let alone another system (source lost to time, original developer defunct, no porting allowed due to license issues, etc.), which is another reason that XP mode was so heavily pushed in the Pro(+) editions of Windows. This is because companies DO use old non-portable programs on a daily basis, and rebooting into an old version of Windows to run them is a worse option than virtualization.
http://thedailywtf.com/
Daily postings about the shit people need to deal with in tech workplaces. On one hand it's a source of humor, on the other hand a sad look at how most companies are still run.
the only reason why one would use Bootcamp-like applications is when the school or working place one goes to requires the use of a particular operating system (most often Apple's) and a user doesn't necessarily feel like paying $1500 for a "rather average" computer.
You're starting to sound a lot like those apple commercials you seem to detest, since you're pulling the same tactics here to spread misinformation.
"$1500" and "average computer" leads people into thinking you're saying that "apple machines start at $1,500 and they have the same sort of specs you see on low-end machines from other makers".
