Slashdot Mirror
Multi-booting Mac Intel Developer Machines
ytsejam-ppc writes "Ross Carlson over at Jasbone.com has a great article up on how to install multiple operating systems on the new Intel based developer edition Macs. His particular setup triple-booted Mac OS X 10.4.1 (Intel), CentOS 4 and Windows XP. Just makes me drool."
And how many of us have these developer machines?
What that? Zero . . ah ok . . .
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
This looks dandy and all...I'd love to have a developer machine to do this to. But...will it run Linux and Windows on the actual machines in production that we'll see in a couple years?
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Given these aren't production machines, this does not mean too much, especially given that these have a BIOS. There have been many suggestions that production Intel based Macs won't be using the BIOS.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Which OS runs phtoshop faster?
...and this is easy since the Developer Transition Platform is just running a generic Intel motherboard, generic Intel video chipset, an Intel Pentium 4 660 processor with HT, and a standard Intel BIOS (NOT a Phoenix BIOS as has been incorrectly reported elsewhere), but what will really be great is when someone makes a Virtual PC- or vmware-like product (perhaps even one of those products themselves) that is a virtual machine that runs under Mac OS X that allows running essentially any x86 OS at near-full speed, side by side with Mac OS X, without having to reboot.
Since it will be running on x86 hardware, processor instructions do not have to be emulated: they can run natively at near-full speed of the underlying hardware.
Further, though Apple will do nothing to stop users from installing Windows on production Intel-based Macintosh systems, it's likely that the production systems will evolve beyond the generic hardware that makes the Developer Transition Platform. Apple itself has said, "Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product." This means there may be additional specialized hardware for which Windows drivers and specialized support profiles will not be maintained by Apple. Of course, this isn't stopping anyone from making them, and Intel has said that Intel-based Macs will use commodity Intel processors, chipsets, and other support components, but it might not be quite as seamless as just popping in a Windows CD and installing (though it very well could be).
Let's also not forget that the production machines may not be - and likely will not be - using BIOS, rendering useless any such conventional PC multi-boot configurations. (But even with EFI or Open Firmware, there's no reason Apple couldn't maintain a robust multi-boot system.)
The point is that a virtual machine product could offer a supported configuration for x86 OSes, including Windows, Linux variants, etc., without the headache and hassle of rebooting into another OS. Sure, dual/multi-booting has benefits, and certainly this will be possible on even the production hardware, but most users would likely prefer a Virtual PC-like environment for running x86 OSes/applications without rebooting.
On this topic, one wonders if Microsoft will be the entity that releases this first. After all, they've already got Virtual PC for Mac, and Virtual PC for Windows (and Microsoft Virtual Server) is exactly this type of virtual machine product, albeit for Windows. On one hand, you can argue that for Microsoft, it's just another copy of Windows sold, so why should they care? But on the other hand, if they make a first-class VM product for Mac OS X that runs Windows (and other x86 OSes) seamlessly at near-full speed of the native hardware, it definitely assists in the sales of more machines designed primarily to run Mac OS X, which could be a poor strategic choice...
But even if Microsoft doesn't do it, let's hope someone like EMC does with vmware.
For more general information, see http://appleintelfaq.com/.
For our next /. story we'll be demonstrating how to install debian on a PC running in a country where the only available electrical power is at 230V.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
OS X is closed source. This means that it is the work of the devil - its purpose is to make the end users eat babies.
Linux is the only free OS. Yes the BSD lincenses may appear more free, but as they have no restrictions, they are actually less free than the GPL. You see, restricting the end user more actually makes them more free than not putting restrictions on them. You must be a dumb luser for not understanding this.
And you obviously dont have a real job. A real job involves being a student or professional academic. You see, academics are the ones who know all about productivity - if you work for a commercial organisation you obviously do not know anything about computers. Usability is stupid. Whats wrong with the command line? If you cant use the command line then you shouldnt be using a computer. vi should be the standard word processor - you are such a luser if you want to use Word. Installing software should have to involve recompiling the kernel of the OS. If you dont know how to do this, you are a stupid luser who should RTFM. Or go to a Linux irc channel or newsgroup. After all, they are soooo friendly. If you dont know how the latest 2.6 kernel scheduling algorithm works then they will tell you to stop wasting their time, but they really are quite supportive.
Oh, and M$ is just as evil as Apple. Take LookOUT for instance. You could just as easily use Eudora. Who needs groupware anyway, a simple email client should be all we use (thats all we use as academics, why cant businesses be any different).
And trend setters - Linux is the trend setter. It may appear KDE is a ripoff from XP, but thats because M$ stole the KDE code. We all know they have GPL'ed code hidden in there somewhere (but not the things that dont work, only the things that work could possibly have GPL'ed code in it).
And Apple is the suxor because they charge people for their product. We all know that its a much better business model to give all your products away for free. If you charge for anything, then you are allied with M$ and will burn in hell.
see... unrelated news: see...
What about 64-bit chips? These Pentium 4-based Macs are 32-bit, I was hoping Apple would be heading in the direction of 64-bit like they started to do with G5. Are they going to use Xeon chips in the high end machines, perhaps?
Powered by caffeine and sugar; BSD
If it's an Intel box, it should be able to run BeOS as well. :-)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
...they likely won't be using BIOS.
But if they're using EFI (a distinct possibility), it's still likely that Windows will be able to be directly installed.
And even if they make the unlikely choice of Open Firmware, that doesn't stop Windows (and any other x86 OS) from running at essentially the full speed of the native underlying hardware in a virtual machine environment that someone is bound to produce. In fact, that's likely even *more* desirable to a larger number of people than the hassle of dual booting. And a VM is possible regardless of what the boot mechanism will be.
Windows to work??!
-- The InterNet is a terrible thing to waste, arrest Bill Gates and close down Microsoft immediately.
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
It makes you drool..
LOL, I cant wait for the first round of (serious) posts that think Macs are better than PCs because they run Windows XP.
Zealots are too much.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
No see that would at least make sense... ... the perfect choice for your nextgen desktop and laptops...
You know, go with the Pentium4
The fact that any sane person rather see a PentiumM over a 4 doesn't stop Apple from their random rampage into techtown...
If I wanted a p4 box I'd buy a p4 box and throw Gentoo on it and avoid the whole "pay Steve money" issue... oh wait, that's what I did...
Huh?
Word on the street says Apple's Intel-powered machines will use Pentium M based CPUs, not Pentium 4.
Intel has stated several times that Pentium 4 doesn't have a whole lot of life left in it, and their roadmaps show enhanced and muli-core Pentium M systems as the future. Plus of all of the Intel benefits Steve Jobs mentioned, most don't even apply to the Pentium 4 (performance per watt, bright future, etc).
I don't know why Apple is using the P4 for their developer systems, maybe because their Intel builds for the past 3 years used P4 rather than P3, Athlon, or PentiumM.
No, its what they told us WOULD be possible.
since none of us actually have Mac OSX 10.4.1 for Intel
This is the Mac, not the Intel version of OS X - the apps seem to run fine on my G4...
Or did someone else here about tri/quad booting on intel mac's a month ago?
Go to the w3.org and put Slashdot.org through the validator.
By Ross Carlson and Joel Wampler
Quick Guide | Full Guide | Install OS X | Install Windows XP | Install CentOS Linux | Drivers
In this guide we'll take you through installing multiple operating systems on the Intel based Developer Macintosh machine. This guide was put together by Ross Carlson and Joel Wampler to hopefully get you through building a machine that can run every major operating system currently available. This guide takes about 2 hours total. Let's get started...
First there are a few things that you'll need:
Notes:
Quick Guide: - Return to Top
If you're like us and hate reading through pages of crap to get things done here is the quick version of what you'll need to do. We'll explain this step-by-step down below.
That was my understanding anyway. So I might be wrong too, but I'm sure Apple would never have intended to release an x86 that CAN'T run other OSs.
Who cares?
Seriously, Linux zealots - shit on the pot or get the hell off.
Meaning: Either show me 1 (one!) killer reason to use Linux (besides price or messing with the source code) that isn't offered by every other OS under the sun. Or shut the hell up.
I am sick and tired of the major advantages of Linux being "cost and source code". However, I NO LONGER CARE. If I cared about having the source code, I'd use FreeBSD because the BSD licence is less restrictive than the GPL. If I cared about cost, I'd use a free OS, but probably FreeBSD because of superior documentation and organisation. Bear in mind that up-front price means absolutely nothing to most end-users, and that almost nobody wants to mess with their computer for the sake of messing with their computer.
I run Windows XP and OS X, and I don't miss the lost hours wasted over Linux trying to rebuild a kernel or troubleshoot a package dependency problem.
Obviously as developer platforms, these boxes bear no real similarity to the Intel based macs that will eventually go into production, but I'm hopeful that the ability to boot Windows on Intel macs may remain even through to production hardware. Obviously there may be issues regarding whatever bios-replacement Apple chooses to use on their hardware, but I'm sure they're also aware of the potential for dual booting macs between Windows and OS X. Whether this is something they want to embrace with their new platform (and I seem to recall Phil Schiller stating that there was no reason Windows couldn't run on an x86 mac) or whether it's something that they consider would 'taint' the Macintosh user experience remains to be seen.
This boot setup must be a dream for some people out there with a gaming rush who would love to be able to get the best of both worlds (although the mac mini has its logical place here) . I only hope this flexibility doesn't get wiped out in production hardware..
Business Voyeur
I remember running NeXTStep 4.2 on white hardware, and it once had its own bootloader that could handle multiboot. I guess they took it out for OSX/White?
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
per the article: Other Device: There is also one of the Trusted Computing chips on the board - Windows Update will install the driver for that... sse3 and tpm are the reasons that mac os x/x86 will not run on anything other than apple devkits right now. apple's ATSServer is not compiled for i386 - with good reason: so that the 'rosetta' ppc translator is required. oah750 is 'rosetta', which has hooks to run correctly only through the presence of said TPM. executing ppc binaries manually results in a segfault. no tpm, no rosetta, no mac os x.
What exatly does this have to do with a Mac?
Uhm... he doesn't use MS-Windows. I won't tell you the *name* of the OS he uses, but it's the one put out by Apple.
Also, as a side note- I received a call a couple of days ago from a woman in the Developer Connection group (I love those Irish accents, rowr :-)...but the accent wasn't enough for me to say yes to leasing the intel developer machine.
"Have you heard about our offer for development systems to ADC Select members?"
"Yep." Who hasn't? People under rocks? :-)
"Are you interested in taking advantage of the offer?"
"Nope, sorry."
Question is, why are they having to do this? Is reception to the development system lukewarm? Did they make a whole bunch, and are just being aggressive about getting 'em out to people? (which would be a good idea). I guess $1k isn't bad at all if you're a serious developer (I'm not).
Please help metamoderate.
... that i read the actual chip that Apple will be using does not publicly exist yet. i don't know much of anything about Intel's roadmap and if it will be based on the M series but i thought it was supposed to be a chip that was slated for release Spring 2006.
are people are getting hung up on the fact that the developer machines are not the new Apple machines 1 or 2 years early. in theory everything rewritten for these test machines will work fine on the new ones. would that mean that software may not be fully optimized if these newer chips are something crazy? i have no idea. i guess they will be in the same boat as the rest of the software writing world that wants their products to work on Intel chips.
You should try the new Unbunatu distribution. It is fairly new and has excellent hardware support. One feature that impressed me greatly was the automatic printer setup and configuration. The GNOME desktop integrates the various graphical components very well. In addition, the GNOME environment succeeds where others have failed by removing important functionality (e.g. moving windows off the edges of the screen) in order to not confuse even the simplest of idiots.
As the current distro-of-the-week, Unbunatu has a large, helpful community. Roving bands of armed nomads break into homes and install Unbunatu on any computers they find. The nomads are very helpful and polite, I think. I can't quite tell what language they're speaking, but they sure know how to fix all kinds of problems! Sometimes they get a little excited, though. Try not to make any sudden movements or loud noises.
Really, give Unbunatu a try. It gives a whole new meaning to Desktop Linux!
It will also be interesting to see how many of the Mac users decide that dual booting is too much trouble, and just stick with Windows
Approximately zero existing Mac users. If they wanted to run Windows, they'd have PCs already. Now, some future customers may buy Mactels so they can check out OS X, and then decide to go back to Windows full time, but that's still a win for Apple since they'll get profits from the hardware.
Prediction: Apple stops supporting their own OS and becomes a high-end hardware vendor and iPod seller
No. Steve has no interest in being a Microsoft thrall.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
That particlar torrent is bundled with a trojan.
Both remaining BeOS users report positive results installing BeOS on these machines.
Did anyone else notice that it works just like installing more then one operating system on any machine? And arent' the only people with access to these machines supposed to be developers? Wouldn't you sort of expect them to be able to figure this out?
Wow. You can 'partition' a hard drive, and install multiple 'operating systems'. This would only really have been news if you couldn't.
On that note, I'm suprised that the x86 Tiger isn't floating around yet. (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't been looking). There are a fair number of developers with the boxes now, one of them must have a roomate with poor judgment...
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
This wasn't too well received over at Macslash. There seemed to be some questions as to whether he was in violation of the ADC's NDA, so he took the page down: here
Good to see he brought it back up.
-Scott
My other sig is a Glock
>Currently, on every Mac sold, MS gets the revenue for a copy of Office.
Uhh, the version of Office that comes with MacOS X, last I checked, was a time-limited trial, and not a fully copy. You still have to purchase a full copy if you want Office. So this statement is false.
Microsoft Office is very much optional on the MacOS X platform.
-Z
I thought develpers were supposed to IMPROVE technology.
How does it help anyone to put Winblows on the same computer as OS X?
So you're telling me that you can run Windows XP on an x86 processor system built with more or less stock commodity parts? Geez thats amazing. What will they come up with next?
I downloaded a couple. One was a giant .iso file that I would have to burn to a DVD (slightly less than a gig, if I remember right). It claimed to be a leaked version of the upcoming retail version of Tiger for Intel. Lacking a DVD burner, I used QEMU to boot the image only to find myself staring at hello.jpg. Very nice.
I downloaded another one called "Mactel base", or something along those lines. It was a rar file, (a bit over a gig), containing a tar file (slightly less than 4gb) which appeared to contain a copy of the filesystem off of a Mactel. It came with no instructions. It appears that I would have to install Darwin, then extract the Mactel base over the Darwin install. Then after that, I would have to magically convince OSX to start. Darwin doesn't have a whole lot of hardware support, but I managed to get it to boot on an old Celeron system I have with an Intel chipset and Intel graphics (after it crashed and burned on an AMD Athlon XP and an older P4). But I have no idea what to do next with it (assuming this one isn't a hoax either).
Phil Shiller said that Apple would not actively be preventing people from running Windows on Apple boxes. And why would they? On the same token, why would they do any work at all to make Windows run on their boxes?
My guess is that without a bit of work Windows will not install on the final boxes, and will always be a hack: a few people will do it, but the majority won't bother. And that would suit Apple just fine.
Whether or not Microsoft wants Windows XP or Windows Vista to run on Intel-based Macs, it will.
:
Also, I never said that Mac OS X would run on commodity hardware. I'm saying the exact opposite: that Windows will run on Apple's Intel-based hardware. But on this topic, if you're arguing that the only way Apple can keep Mac OS X on its own hardware is via DRM, you'd be wrong. Apple currently specifies that Mac OS X can only run on Apple-branded hardware in the EULA. The legality aspect alone would relegate running Mac OS X (or hacking it to run) on commodity hardware to a comparatively negligible subset of slashdot-types, hackers, people content to pirate the OS, people content to run without any support from Apple on completely unsupported configurations, etc. In other words, on the grand scale, just about no one.[1] Sure, Apple *might* use DRM to do this, but it doesn't have to. Mac OS X currently has no product activation of any kind; it doesn't even have a serial number.
Whether it is in a direct-boot capacity or in a virtual machine, or both, remains to be seen, but you can be sure Windows WILL run on the Intel-based Macs, period. (And if you're arguing that Apple will somehow specifically disallow it, that flies in the face of both Phil Schiller, the number 2 man at Apple, specifically saying that Apple will not do anything to preclude people from installing Windows on Intel-based Macs, and the fact that multiple solutions for running Windows on PowerPC hardware, albeit in emulation, exist today. Are you honestly saying that we'll have less options to run Windows in actual x86 hardware? Hardly.)
Further, the last thing Apple wants is people Mac OS X applications getting killed because of the reasoning that people can just run them in Windows, so why even make it any more? Apple developers, including Microsoft's Mac Business Unit, understand that Mac OS X users want to run software in the Mac OS X interface and environment. Running software at full speed in Windows under, say, a virtual machine environment will be a convenience, not the default. Yes, you can make arguments that developers will kill their Mac products, but that makes the assumption that a very large percentage of the Mac userbase will fork out for a VM plus a license of Windows (whether or not these are ultimately bundled together in some product is beside the point - the point is, it will be costly). Further, there is no value in Mac OS X if there is no software. And since Mac OS X growth and Apple growth in general is at the highest in the company's history, Mac OS X developers will not be leaving the platform. There are compelling reasons to choose Mac OS X over Windows, and people, business, and academia are making that decision daily.
[1] From http://www.macworld.com/2005/06/features/intelfaq/
Will any PC be able to run Mac OS X for Intel?
Apple says no. Our guess is that some enterprising hacker may be able to get it to work, but we'd expect that if anyone can get OS X to run on PC hardware, it will be a laborious process, and the end result may not be a particularly stable system. You certainly won't be able to go out, buy OS X, stick the install DVD in a Dell PC, and have it just work. Apple intends Mac OS X to only run on Apple hardware.
From http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ar s/3
Q: Will I be able to run Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC?
A: No.
Q: Try and stop me!
A: Apple most assuredly will--try, that is. And they'll fail, just like Microsoft failed to stop people from installing Linux and MAME on the Xbox. But like MS, all Apple has to do is make sure that only Slashdot-reading, VoIP-using, PC-assembling, DMCA-breaking geeks hack their way to an "unapproved" configuration of hardware and software. If it's illegal (th
For all their despotism and malfeasance, microsoft are not stupid. And it pays to be a realist.
After all, they can't count on having a bought-and-paid-for republican administration in the white house, FOREVER putting the DOJ and SEC on hold. And even if they could, some other outfit will EVENTUALLY slip under the radar and totally blindside them. Remember, for example, when IBM was the evil king of the mountain that nobody thought would ever be toppled? Little outfits like Apple and microsoft slipped in and ate them for lunch.
Either way, they have to allow for the fact that their OS monopoly won't last forever. And when it collapses, it'll pay off to have other sources of income.
Who knows... in a few decades, when gates, allen, ballmer, myhrvold, and the rest of that malignant lot are happily dead and buried, microsoft might just become what IBM is now... the ex-evil-emipre that we all root for now that they've turned to the side of good.
cya,
john
> On one hand, you can argue that for Microsoft, it's just
> another copy of Windows sold, so why should they care? But
> on the other hand, if they make a first-class VM product for
> Mac OS X that runs Windows (and other x86 OSes) seamlessly
> at near-full speed of the native hardware, it definitely assists
> in the sales of more machines designed primarily to run Mac
> OS X, which could be a poor strategic choice...
Imagine all the people...
I hang around a few sites that would have the full ISO torrent if released (as opposed to the backup image floating around) and posed the same question. The answer I got was that people are nervous the Apple legal dept will come down on early torrents like a tonne of bricks so people aren't rushing to do a full release on that basis.
No, wait, you're not even close to being right.
First of all, Microsoft gets no revenue from every Mac sold. Because exactly zero Macs come with Office. They come with a *trial* of Office. Customers must still purchase it separately.
Second, a comparatively small number of people (mostly concentrated in business and institutional settings) will be the only people running Windows under virtualization. Some new customers will be added because of the speed, and perhaps some new-to-Mac customers because they can run Windows in addition to Mac OS X.
Third, people buy Macs because they want the Mac OS. Not because they secretly want to run Windows on Apple hardware. They're using or switching to Mac OS X because Windows is the steaming pile of dogshit that it is. Running Windows is only a necessity to run Windows software (and having access to the wide variety of commodity PC hardware). I'm not sure many people run Windows because it's the most stable, secure OS available. Not to mention that people who run Windows on an Intel-based Mac will likely be NOT dual-booting, but rather running it in virtualization, side by side with Mac OS X, and only doing it when they need to run Windows-specific software.
Lastly, your assertion that Apple would stop supporting Mac OS X is nothing short of hilarious. I don't even know how to respond to it. Apple might not be a "software company", but Mac OS X is entirely what draws people to the Mac platform. The fact that the hardware is excellently engineered is incidental. Further, if ANYTHING will transform Apple into a "software company", propelling Mac OS X into the larger world beyond Apple hardware when appropriate, it's this transition. In other words, the exact opposite of what you said.
In fact, the actual scenario is more or less the opposite of your entire post. But it was good entertainment!
Lets see, it triple boots OSX, Linux, and Windows. Linux and OSX have been dual booting on PPC for a while now, Windows and Linux have been dual booting on x86 for a while now, so basically you're saying its the combination of Windows with the other OSes that is making you drool?
The guys over at OSx86 figured out several days ago that some of the important parts of the OS were already utilizing the TPM. It's interesting to see how this article confirms it - by seeing it's detection in Windows!
I could install Solaris 10 and have a cheap server with zones!
I doubt it. Apple already has a Power Point type of application and a Word type of App. I think that Apple will try to challenge MS Office in the next few years - not so much as to attack MS but rather to defend their OS
This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
Linux aside, with Apple's switch and Microsoft well behind on Longhorn perhaps Apple really has a true chance to make some headaway. The next 10 years may not be like the last...for long.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
I'd prefer a DVI KVM switch and seperate mac and windows boxes to dual booting.
OOOooo! This is soooow kewel!! Dual boot computerssssss! It's sew kewel, and yet.... so retro. I remember if it was only yeasterday, or yester-decade when I did this with OS/2 and Windows3.1 and Linux. Ahhh, 1993, what a year. And now in 2005, LOOK! Dual and even triple boot computers! Not that I would be one to utter 'been there, done that, got the shirt'..... not me, nope, wouldn't do it...
We already have a perfectly fine and accurate word to describe boxes in plural. It is the word "boxes".
To use the non-word "boxen" is the antithesis of what coding is about. Coding is about efficiency, about getting the job done. To create new sounds to replace existing ones is redundant. It doesn't not even impart a specific linguistic subtlety that would warrant it's creation or use. At most, all usage of this non-word serves is to announce the user's lack of intelligence, and act as a klaxon for someone who feels the need to be linguistically trendy.
Representatives of the Tribunal For The Eradication of Useless Sounds shortly will be at your abode to take you in for arrest, arraignment and imprisonment. Do not try to resist, citizen.
It is really odd that Apple is now in a position to leverage.... Windows XP to break into a larger market. Think about that for a second.
Believe it or not, there are tons of people out there with more than enough money to buy just about any kind of computer they want. Paying 2%0 more or even 80% more than the cheapest available comparable system is no biggie for these people.
What they do want tho is a system that they know will work for them. Many, many people are afraid of the big switch to PPC Mac OSX because they don't know if OS X will work for them, and if it doesn't, the hardware is basically useless for them (i.e. they aren't going to install Linux and be happy with it).
With the new Intel machines, these people can now buy apple gear knowing that they can go back to XP if need be. I'd bet that a big majority of these people never get around to even installing XP.
Does this mean that Apple wont use their style partition tables anymore?. I always hated the fact that is impossible to mix up Intel and Apple style partitions, for example now it is impossible to have Fat32 and HFS+ partitions on the same drive. If you use an apple style-partition table you can mix apple, linux and bsd partitions, but not apple and Microsoft partitions. By using an Intel style partition table, you can mix lots and lots of partitions, fat32,ntfs, ext2/3, QNX, Befs, etc, etc, but YOU CANNOT HAVE AN HFS+ PARTITION
You run the bi-monthly Windows repair and MBR gets fuxxored - bye bye multiboot, welcome manual repair hassle.
It's a known fact that dual- or tripleboot machines spend 99% of their time in ONE environment, since booting is painful. The Windoze installation will get outdated and unpatched fast.
Partitioning is pain. The only writable FS supported by all Linux and OSX and W2K/XP is FAT32, which is fault-prone and does not support large files. Using native FS is better, but you always have space on the "wrong" partitions and disks.
It would be better if VMWare released OS X version of their workstation software. None of the hassle above since data sharing could be done using NFS/SMB and Windows repairs/reinstalls become a non-issue.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
With Apple comming to Intel, I guess it was only a matter of time.
Apple had about 12% market share when it began the PowerPC transition, and 5% afterward. I mean, yes, they made their transition, but it was certainly not "seamless" there was a major developer outcry, and they lost most of their customer base. I think it's debateable, therefore, how well it went.
Wow. Considering how many different "start" and "end" dates people will cite for the transtion from 68k to PowerPC, I think we need some more information as to what time period you're specifying for Apple losing 42% of it's marketshare. Is this the time from PowerPC being introduced in consumer markets till major apps were all PowerPC native? Till Apple stopped making 68k hardware? Or until major developers stopped making 68k versions of programs? Or until non-PowerPC machines were counted as obsolete for today's uses?
Feel free to cite studies that directly attribute the loss of marketshare completely to a "developer outcry". 68k code ran on PowerMacs. Nobody stuck a gun to the developers' heads and said they had to build PowerPC accelerated versions of code, and many makers of smaller utilities did not do so until they had to later on (like during Carbon-ation in preparation for OSX). Most did so because of the performance boost they got from it.
Also, during this same time frame, did any of the following occur?
*Wintel hardware got cheaper.
*PC gaming market exploded (not the Macintosh gaming market, but the PC game market).
*Windows got better/easier to use.
*Internet became more mainstream (and the browser wars started).
*Apple began losing education marketshare, as pressure built to pick cheaper hardware and Windows systems (because that's what they'll use in the "real world", goddarnit!).
*Consolidation in the software industry effecting development of certain programs/platforms.
I'm sure a few of these events overlap the time frame of the 68k/PPC switch and may have had a teensy hand in Mac market share decreasing from 12% to 5%, if it even did go down like that. At the moment, all you've done is throw out a figure with no chronological basis or source.
There's a page with instructions about this. Its quite involved and you need to have a Mac. Apparently that particular leak was incomplete. Anyway if you look I'm sure you can find it. Its pretty complex and you need multiple hard drives to play around with, a genuine mac computer and an intel.
Thought long and hard about why this is so great. Or why it matters at all. It looks like a solution without a problem. There are lots of issues with the current generation of Macs, but none of them are the fact that they cannot run Windows. The problem Apple has is exactly the reverse: standard Intels cannot run X. So what is this really about? Surely no-one thinks that if this still holds true of the production models, it will increase the sales of Macs? It will not. No large numbers of people are going to buy the hardware to run XP on it. It will not solve the fundamental underlying problem: too little market share for the OS, because it will only run on proprietary hardware that people are not buying in great enough numbers, mainly because it is too expensive. Also because it is too closed. Well, it will still be too expensive, and it will still be closed. It is a failed business model. The model that is working is open hardware. All the rest is distractions. The worrying thing is that the DRM stuff suggests that maybe Cupertino is still distracted. What we seem to be seeing is a management team consistently failing to confront their stratetic problem in a main line of business. And their community failing to confront it too....
but isn't that guide a little stupid? I'm pretty sure anyone who would have been able to get their hands on a dev x86 mac would know how to install several operating systems on one box, and make them multiboot.
--
I was thinking of the corporate environments...rather than the home or creative-type users. In the corporatate (companies with greater than 50 employees) environment Office is almost a standard. If you want to share documents with business partners or other employees at the firm, Office is nearly required. To grow the Mac share, Apple will need to grow its corporate business--thus the need for Office.
The home market I guess can do fine with the Mac equivalant of Wordpad...
And?
It's completely non-profit, non-commercial, there is no advertising of any type, there are no referral or clickthru ad links, and I get no financial gain of any type from the site.
So is there something wrong with collecting and putting factual information together on a website for the benefit of others?
Personally, I agree that this is fairly pointless speculation. I'd love one machine to fit all roles, and I hope it happens. But Apple are currently shipping a very small number of hacked-together Intel macs to a very select group (not quite select enough unfortuantely it seems). The production macs will probably be based on a totally different main board, and may not even have a PC BIOS (more likely to revert to Open Firwmare I would have thought). It is *very* conceivable that Apple will dleiberately prevent the machines from running Windows using some of the "trusted computing" hardware at their disposal. After all - who wants to be responsible for supporting hardware running Windows? Not Apple, I bet.
"Apple offers the state of the art operating system, Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard with all Intel Mac models. Your Mac is also capable booting into other operating system offer by third party. Options include Linux operating system, a brother of OS X which truely favour by your Geek brother. If desired, choose a crappy Microsoft Windows VISTA Operating System. (Which Stand for Virus, Infection, Spam, Trojan and Adware)"
;-)
Okay that just for fun.
So now, one of the distinguishing features of MacIntosh, it's vaunted hardware integration, is going the way of the dodo. Yes, I presume Mac will still make it's hardware: step back and take the wide view with me for one second, here, OK? My puzzle is, to what purpose do we port Mac OS to Intel chips? Groovy that I'll have yet another operating system choice...but when I'm running Mac OS on my ATX mobo and my garage-sale monitor, *what* advantage will Mac have left over other OSs?
Sounds like it should be part of the USA gymnastics teams routine for the next Olympics- The triple-booting, back handstand, side twisting, OS excercise.
I can now migrate to a mac and take my SW with me. Never bought a Mac before but this has me considering it.
A Intel based mini probably won't be that expensive. We have reached the point where the vast majority of people have their needs met by the slowest machine on the market. Now we will be entering a period where the experience will matter more than the horsepower. Entry Macs will compete very well in that environment.
I fail to see what all the excitement's about.
... no update for you.
Apple has to handle all those calls, get everybody's information, and send the software updates. The key phrase in there was 'get everybody's information'.
If they don't know you, 'cause you didn't register the CPU ID when and where you bought the CPU (at an Apple store, of course), then
OS X is based on and leverages the importance of the 'net. A stand-alone computer is of no interest to anybody, nor is it a threat to anybody.
Since everybody 'calls home' once a week, they keep track of who's calling, when and where from.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I've owned computers for 25 years now. I've been through eight bit machines, UNIX machines at Uni, 16 bit Amigas and 32 bit Acorn/ARM machines. I bought my first PC in 1995 and that was because, by then Linux had become useable enough for me. Eventually I also put Windows 95 on that machine. That machine is still around. Like the preverbial axe it has had all of its bits replaced a few times but is still the same machine. It now runs Linux and Windows XP except that it's been hardly touched in the last few months. Why? Because I use an old Mac G3 instead.
I used Macs at work between '88 and '93. I liked the hardware but thought it was expensive. Thought the software was okay but a little slow and sometimes unstable. So if someone bought one for me, I'd use it but otherwise I'd use something else. (RISC OS in the early 90s, then Linux/Windows).
I dislike Windows for many useablity reasons (I'm not an evangelist and will use something if it does the job) and I dislike Linux because it's not finished. Open source coders seem to lose interest once you've got a 90% complete product or application. They either prefer to refactor or add functionality rather than fixing those remaining bugs. I spend all my time at work being techy and I don't want to do it at home. I just want a machine I can use.
So when Apple anounced OS-X a couple of years or so ago I was interested. A UNIX foundation with Apple's useabilty on the top. But again the costs ruled one out. Not that long ago I got word of the availability of a cheap, second hand, Mac G3 so I bought it. Since I've had it it's done everything I need my home workhorse to do and the PC has not been touched. It may be a tad slow but I'm not worried about games as I use consoles for those (I decided a few years ago that I couldn't afford to keep a PC up to spec enough to play the latest games and so it was cheaper to pay the console premium on games and buy a Playstation 2).
I've just bought myself an iBook as I feel happiest using OS-X. I'm not worried whether it's PowerPC or x86 as in the end that's just one component in many and the machine runs the same software. I've grown up and no longer care whether my machine has the latest Hibachi 10Ghz processor, just whether it fulfil's my needs.
So the new machines will have an Intel processor in. So what? It doesn't mean I will put Windows on. I bought a Mac to get away from Windows. Apple will not stop producing OS-X because people don't just buy their hardware for the hardware, they buy a user experience and that requires OS-X.
If I want Office, I can get it for Mac (Actually I use OpenOffice/NeoOffice when I need such an application). I don't need Windows for anything. I have everything on my Mac. The only thing I use my PC for now is Linux development and the one thing that an Intel Mac would give me is the ability to do away with my PC.
You have an assumption that you cannot do without Windows and people want windows. You're wrong and I feel that actually what will happen is the complete reverse of what you describe.
And they can be glad they can. We'll just use Mac OS X because we can.
And dual/multi-booting is a PITA option. Nobody's going to copy from one program, wait for a reboot and paste (only to discover that the clipboard didn't carry over [without a special clipboard manager.])
Look for Apple to provide VM software, that works, while Microsoft misses the boat on this one.
And why not? Everybody knows they're so big now that they don't worry about things like copyrights or patents or pre-existing businesses. They can afford to pay for any damage. They never have to say they're sorry.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Primarily because of the cross-OS copy-cut&paste capabilities. (Heck, if they wanted to assure some sales where I work, they just have to make sure that connection to an IBM 3x0 mainframe will work.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
There's a page with instructions about this. Its quite involved and you need to have a Mac. Apparently that particular leak was incomplete. Anyway if you look I'm sure you can find it. Its pretty complex and you need multiple hard drives to play around with, a genuine mac computer and an intel.
But people have it working? That would seem more newsworthy than someone figuring out how to make a machine dual boot. I don't have a genuine Apple Mac so I can't try it myself.
Thanks, Captain Obvious. The entire computer industry knew about it within a day- it was pretty much the biggest news all summer.
Apple's either got a lot of them, or not "loaning" them out very well, if they have to resort to cold-calling developers. We're aware of the possibilities; I stated them; all you did was parrot me. You just gave a duplicate opinion, not any actual original thought.
Please help metamoderate.
....who thinks different!
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
But I want to run OSX on the AMD64 I have now!!
According to Steve Jobs, Apple will do nothing to prevent these machines from running Windows.
Personally, I think it would be an incredible tactical mistake to prevent these machines from running Windows. There are too many people out there who would LOVE to have a multi-boot machine. This could be Apple's key to reclaiming LOTS of lost market share.
There are too many people out there who USED to be Mac fans but left when the Mac platform stagnated or when market pressures pushed them into the PC world.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Yes PPC efforts will continue after Apple, but IBM seems to pushing in the game console direction. No doubt we'll see IBM supercomputers running off of 2000 Playstation CPUs.
But methinks that PowerPC for destop and especially MOBILE systems is OVER. And I wouldn't expect SPARC or any other high power CPU platform to survive long either. Everything is now going x86.
If Apple gets fed up with Intel, they can switch to AMD and everything is still compatible.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
We're tired of you explaining what you see in the mirror. And no, we don't feel sorry for you any more. It's just too pathetic.
As far as I have understood, Windows for x86 is still in a pretty early development phase.
Has anyone here had success with it yet?
But I actually wish they'd push the bar even LOWER,
Because you see, that for every one person (like you) that thinks my writings (beliefs) are bad, there is 'at least' one person who thinks they are 'The Bomb'!! :)
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..