[citation][nom]millerm84[/nom] Now on to the issues at hand, if bootcamp only creates separate partitions on the disk then why can't you do a clean windows install without it? If bootcamp's only function is to partition a hard drive while leaving the original data in tact why go through the messy process of installing two OSs on the same disk? Because you have to use Bootcamp to install windows, why I don't know, but to use MS on Apple you have to use bootcamp. That fact alone suggests that bootcamp does more then partition the hard drive. Secondly using two apple programs when comparing an apple OS to a windows OS invalidates that data. It would be like testing IE (which was ported to apple at one point)on both systems to see which one surfed the web faster or using Office to test productivity. To have a fair testing of the two OSs Tom's needs to purchase a copy of both, buy a Mac and build a PC with the exact same specs. Test Windows in it's native hardware, test Apple in it's native hardware, test Apple on the PC (hackintosh is like bootcamp to me don't care how it's done if it's done), and test Windows on the mac. Use software that is cross platform only, start/shutdown/sleep speeds, power consumption, productivity software (i'm guessing open office here), file conversion, and gaming speed. Compare overall scores.[/citation]
If one goes to the original article...not written by TH's...the author himself states that the experiment is not "rocket science" but an example of how one could easily conduct such tests on their own Mac's or as you suggested others do on a comparable PC. I am not sure that the author here was presenting the article as fact, but was doing it more to stir the pot. Nothing an editor likes more than people arguing over the content of an article.
Boot Camp is the only true dual-boot option that I know of for the Mac. You have to reboot the computer and then select what OS you want to boot into. Boot Camp then emulates the BIOS so that Windows will run. The problem is that MS made the decision that Windows Vista and XP will not support the Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) BIOS found on Intel-based Macintoshes. Consequently, the OS's won't be able to boot on those machines. I do not understand why a software house such as MS would make a decision like this.
"Boot Camp is not a virtual environment but simply a bundle of native Windows drivers--software that makes the OS work properly with hardware components. These drivers include chipset, video, networking, and so on. As a matter of fact, you can get most of these drivers from the components' manufacturers (or via Windows update). However, Boot Camp also contains drivers for Apple's proprietary hardware including the iSight Webcam, keyboard backlight, and multitouch mouse pad, and therefore it's best to get this bundle instead of looking for drivers individually."
Boot Camp provides the drivers for Windows and the author of the actual test stated that he believes Boot Camp drivers were mostly responsible for the Windows 7 battery life, as many PC laptops fared much better than the 77 minutes the Microsoft OS fared.
You make a valid point about a proper test, but this was more of a whim by the original author. But, I think one would be hard pressed to find a freebie as good as iTunes for converting mp3's that would run on Windows. The definite advantage is the iTunes running in 64-bit mode versus the Win version which I believe is still 32-bit.