USA Today clearly doesn't get it

Andre Cantor, writing for USA Today, posits this article, where he honestly suggests that Boot Camp will encourage Mac users to switch to Windows.

Where to begin? First, this guy is the technology writer and self-avowed "know-it-all" who covers technology for the Roanoke Times, a former editor for PC Magazine, and Internet World. Well, that qualifies him to what? wash dishes?

Seriously, this is a feeble attempt at understanding the Mac without understanding it. He's got a couple of important points, including understanding the gambit that Boot Camp is a way for people who want a Mac to stick with it (or acquire it).

First, he compares pricing and capabilities of the iMac and a cheap dell and the Mini and a large desktop, forgetting entirely to look at the MacBook Pro.

Second, he forgets the fact that many business, and most universities, already have license agreements with Microsoft that allow them to deploy Windows operating systems on every system they own for peanuts. The education price for Windows at most universities (a brand spanking new copy that you can install on a new machine) is cheap, for example, this link from the University of Michigan Computer Store indicates you can have a 2 install license for a student for the price of $14.15.

Third, he's clueless on security, viruses, and anti-virus software. First, there are no viruses for the Macintosh, there are exploits, but nothing that can actually propagate itself. Second, he's correct that there are anti-virus programs for windows, but he acts like that's some kind of new revelation that will save the day. It's not. Norton released the first Antivirus program for Windows in 1990. So, we've had antivirus on PCs for 16 years and Microsoft execs are still warning people they may have to Nuke and reinstall their operating systems because they've gotten so out of hand? Well, perhaps they just don't work. (By the way, there's a great Virus Timeline at IBM Research).

So, anybody else have any thoughts out there?