Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Multi-booting Mac Intel Developer Machines

Posted by timothy on from the multiplicity dept.

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."

74 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. Yes by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And how many of us have these developer machines?

    What that? Zero . . ah ok . . .

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Yes by OverlordQ · · Score: 2, Informative

      How is this a troll/flamebait? It's a logical comment, the number of us normal users who have or have access to the Developer Mac boxen is next to nil.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    2. Re:Yes by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yet, people have them.

      Further, by the end of 2007, all Macs will be Intel based (according to Apple's initial statement).

      So people might care to see what types of things may, and likely will, be possible.

      Especially people who might want to buy *one* machine, say, a laptop, and run Mac OS X, Windows, Linux, and other x86 OSes on it, all at native speeds. And yes, one way or another, this will likely be trivially possible. See my other posts for more information.

      In other words, this is very interesting to that group of people. Which, among slashdot readers, is probably quite a lot.

    3. Re:Yes by sribe · · Score: 2, Funny

      And how many of us have these developer machines?

      I do! In fact, I've had it for close to a month now, and it looks great sitting there on the floor behind my chair. I'm really hoping that after ADHOC I'll have a chance to like, uh, plug it in and uh, see if it boots, or something...

      I'm not even kidding.

    4. Re:Yes by HairyCanary · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you wanted one, you could buy it for 1500 bucks. It costs 500 bucks to get into the developer program so you're eligible to buy one in the first place, and a thousand bucks for the machine itself. I've thought about it...

    5. Re:Yes by jbravo556 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can't 'BUY' one. For $1500, you get a year's select developer membership and you get to 'Lease' the machine. You'll have to return it by the end of 2006.

  2. But will it run Linux... by chia_monkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:But will it run Linux... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's no reason to believe it won't.

      See my post here for more details. At the very, very least it could run Linux and Windows nicely in a virtual machine environment, but it's very likely that yes, they will run Linux - and Windows - regardless of whether the final machines utilize BIOS, Open Firmware, or EFI. Why wouldn't they? Especially in the case of Linux. PowerPC Macs run several varieties of Linux today; why wouldn't they also be able to run on production Intel-based Macs, even if they make the surprising decision of using Open Firmware? And there's no reason Apple would want to *prevent* people from installing Linux, or even Windows, as Phil Schiller himself has said Apple won't do anything to preclude people from installing Windows on Intel-based Macs.

      This is a huge coup for Apple: imagine a laptop that can seamlessly run Windows XP and Linux - PLUS Mac OS X. Or better yet, run one environment (such as Mac OS X) and have your other environments in a VM at essentially full speed. It would be a dream machine, to be sure.

    2. Re:But will it run Linux... by artem69 · · Score: 2, Informative
      From the source:

      Macintosh computers that use an Intel microprocessor do not use Open Firmware. Although many parts of the IO registry are present and work as expected, information that is provided by Open Firmware on a PowerPC Macintosh (such as a complete device tree) is not available in the IO registry on a Macintosh that uses an Intel microprocessor.
    3. Re:But will it run Linux... by sql_noob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's if Apple actually support the drivers in linux and/or windows.

      Will apple open the hardware specifications so linux would work perfectly?

      Will they provide the windows driver so unsatisfied clients can return their apple computer because the hardware does not work perfectly?

      Another problem is that windows XP is quite expensive (non-OEM ver) and I don't think the apple would bundle windows XP OEM (original equipment manufacturer) in their machine.

    4. Re:But will it run Linux... by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Will apple open the hardware specifications so linux would work perfectly?

      There doesn't appear to be any problem with that with the current PPC models. If Yellow Dog can get Linux running well on a PowerMac G5 (and by all accounts they have), I don't see why anyone would have any trouble getting an x86 distro running just as well on a (PM)^2.

      (That's a PowerMac Pentium-M, natch.)

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    5. Re:But will it run Linux... by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because it will be illegal/against the DMCA/against copyright law in your country/against the Mac OS X EULA to run Mac OS X on anything but Apple hardware, as it currently is today.

      Therefore, it will only be geeks/slashdot-types/hackers/people who don't mind running Mac OS X illegally in an annoyingly unsupported configuration who will be running it on non-Apple hardware.

      In other words, Apple hardware is the only place where you'll be able to legally run Mac OS X on a supported hardware configuration in a supported fashion. So while some pimply engadget-and-boingboing-reading geek may have Mac OS X, Linux, Windows, Ubuntu, Debian, and all manner of other crap running on his slick little Sony Vaio, ordinary people and companies who actually want support and to, you know, run software legally, won't do this. And that represents about 99% of the marketplace.

      So, as I said, this is a huge coup for Apple.

    6. Re:But will it run Linux... by needlesschris · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There's no reason to believe it won't.

      There are a ton of reasons to believe that it won't run Linux or Windows when it ships. Not the least of which is the age-old axiom that states "technology products rarely work in the manner that you believe is appropriate and/or would be the most useful to you".

      I find myself wondering "Why would Apple create this headache for themselves?", with the headache being additional support created by running competing products. The answer is pretty clear to me: they probably won't.

      Historically speaking, if you bet on being disappointed, you aren't usually too far off the mark.

  3. And? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  4. This is nice... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...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/.

    1. Re:This is nice... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Games and any proprietary software that is Windows-only.

      --
      Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
    2. Re:This is nice... by fermion · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      Pretty much that is what I expect to do. I would not feel comfortable running the MS mess outside of a good sandbox that can be cheaply and easily destroyed and rebuilt. My hope is that someone will come up with such a sandbox, replacing VPC, which I did not upgrade after MS acquired it. I did enjoy the ability to run NT and Mandrake in thier own little window, and will look forward to doing so again. I specifically would hope someone other that MS would do this.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:This is nice... by silvertear72 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm looking forward to being able to dual/multi boot OSes on one machine, but my friend may not share the same sentiments as I do. He's a Mac enthusiast and if he ever gets one of these machines, he won't know whether to hug it because of the Mac OS or to set it on fire because of it's ability to boot Windows. I had suggested that he do both, but that doesn't sound like a good idea either...

    4. Re:This is nice... by suzerain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That Apple/Intel FAQ makes many assumptions and declarations without any basis in fact.

      A few examples:

      It ignores the New York Times articles which offered the most compelling information for why the switch happened: namely that Apple demanded certain pricing from IBM that IBM refused to give them. I guess they omitted that because it reflects poorly on Apple?

      It says that the 68k to PowerPC switch was "as seamless as practical", and says that they have completed a switch of this magnitude before. It says this, assuming (a) what the magnitude of this switch is before it even happens, and ignoring (b) that 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.

      The FAQ contradicts itself: It correctly states in the first question that Apple announced that the first Intel-based machines would ship before mid-2006, and then down the page, in discussing "should I buy a Mac", it says "x86-based Macs won't even begin shipping until mid-2006". How the hell can they make this assertion, when Apple has announced no shipping plans? Apple could very well have Intel-based Macs available earlier than "mid-2006" (say, at Macworld in January), which would also go with what they announced (the transition begins BEFORE mid-2006). I think the answer of whether to buy a Mac now is much greyer than this FAQ implies.

      Anyway, I just wanted to point out the the purpose of this "FAQ" appears to be to make people feel like "everything's going to be OK", rather than just presenting facts. I wouldn't pay much attention to it. Read the Mac press instead; whoever set that up clearly has a very pro-Mac agenda that's coloring their interpretation of things. Shit, it reads like it was written by Apple and Intel's PR departments.

      (And I say all this as a Mac user...the answers to many of their questions ought to be "we don't really know".)

      --
      gameDB
    5. Re:This is nice... by Nugget · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you are overlooking or handwaving past the total pain in the ass that "dual booting" represents for people who actually have work to get done. People using VirtualPC today, and presumably on future Intel-based Macs are overwhelmingly NOT going to want to reboot to an entirely different operating system just to run the applications for which they require Windows compatibility. Closing all my native applications to reboot into Windows to run my handful of Windows apps is not at all the same experience as firing up XP inside Virtual PC and running it alongside my "real" apps in my "real" operating system. I suspect that most people will be of a similar mindset, making dual-booting an impractical and undesireable alternative.

      Dual-booting is the province of geeks who like tinkering with their machines. It's not a viable solution for the majority of users with needs which span platforms.

      VirtualPC and Office for Mac are applications which I find very useful. This will not change at all when Macs switch to Intel processors. I expect to enjoy better VirtualPC performance (although it's just fine even now with the burden of architecture differences) but I don't expect to no longer want it.

    6. Re:This is nice... by Nexum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Note please: Market Share != Customer Base.

      As you imply in your post.

      --

      This sig has been deprecated.
    7. Re:This is nice... by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It ignores the New York Times articles which offered the most compelling information for why the switch happened: namely that Apple demanded certain pricing from IBM that IBM refused to give them. I guess they omitted that because it reflects poorly on Apple?

      That's just as much speculation as anything else, and, even if true, is itself was probably tied to the fact that IBM missed its 3GHz part delivery commitment to Apple by over a year. In other words, the assertion that Apple switched for these reasons is valid. Further, I don't say that it was factual; it says "The following scenario likely contributed to this decision". And it very likely did. Pricing demands as a result of that situation are secondary and incidental.

      It says that the 68k to PowerPC switch was "as seamless as practical", and says that they have completed a switch of this magnitude before. It says this, assuming (a) what the magnitude of this switch is before it even happens, and ignoring (b) that 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.

      As another poster pointed out, market share != customer base. Sales dipped after the transition, but the 68K to PowerPC transition is widely regarded as extremely successful: Apple was able to switch processor architectures entirely, while having minimal impact on users. The fact that PowerPC has been a staple for Apple for over ten years is a testament to the success and wisdom of the transition.

      Further, Apple is one of very few companies to have a transition of any type of this magnitude; and it's had not one, but two, covering hardware AND software! Both were executed successfully, so contribute to a reasoned judgement on how well Apple may execute the Intel transition.

      The FAQ contradicts itself: It correctly states in the first question that Apple announced that the first Intel-based machines would ship before mid-2006, and then down the page, in discussing "should I buy a Mac", it says "x86-based Macs won't even begin shipping until mid-2006". How the hell can they make this assertion, when Apple has announced no shipping plans? Apple could very well have Intel-based Macs available earlier than "mid-2006" (say, at Macworld in January), which would also go with what they announced (the transition begins BEFORE mid-2006). I think the answer of whether to buy a Mac now is much greyer than this FAQ implies.

      Jeez. Um, I see what you're trying to get at, but that's not really contradicting itself. They both say "mid-2006", and given Apple's long history of product announcements, there is absolutely NO reason to believe that these machines won't ship as late as possible while still meeting the criteria of shipping before "mid-2006" (technically, before WWDC 2006, according to jobs). Even if they shipped a couple months early, that would still be mid-2006, so your assertion of a contradiction here is really grasping. And either way, if a PowerPC-based Mac was appropriate for someone, it still is just as much today. It's up to the customer to decide whether they'd like to wait.

      Anyway, I just wanted to point out the the purpose of this "FAQ" appears to be to make people feel like "everything's going to be OK", rather than just presenting facts. I wouldn't pay much attention to it. Read the Mac press instead; whoever set that up clearly has a very pro-Mac agenda that's coloring their interpretation of things. Shit, it reads like it was written by Apple and Intel's PR departments.

      Um, that's because everything IS going to be OK. And the facts presented and reasons given clearly show it. It's loaded with external references. The things that aren't strictly facts are prefaced by statements such as "this will likely b

  5. Summary of instructions by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 5, Funny
    Make some partitions. Put the OS of your choice on each partition.

    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.
  6. The benefits are obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:The benefits are obvious by FLAGGR · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, the GPL doesn't restrict the end user more, it restricts (if thats what you want to call it) people developing and extending the software.

    2. Re:The benefits are obvious by greg1104 · · Score: 2, Funny

      While this is true, I think that we all agree that if you're an end user who has to eat a baby, Apple makes the tastiest one.

  7. Old news... by hongree · · Score: 3, Informative

    see... unrelated news: see...

  8. This is nice but... by Zweideutig · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:This is nice but... by Nasarius · · Score: 2, Informative
      You, sir, are retarded. XEON processors have no special 64-bit extensions beyond what the regular 64-bit Pentium 4 has.

      Oh my, this must be embarassing for you:

      Intel's first processor to actively implement the EM64T technology is the processor codenamed Nocona, and is being sold as Intel's latest multiprocessor Xeon.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM64T
      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    2. Re:This is nice but... by ckelly5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're not thinking big enough.

      The dev boxes are for making sure your software runs on intel. There's a lot of work for some of the developers out there, and they need machines now. P4s are cheap and powerful enough to do the job (without giving away all the fun secrets that Steve will undoubtedly use to fuel his RDF ;)) The actual Intel Apple machines you'll start to see won't even be Pentium M - they'll be the next gen chips that aren't on the market yet: Yonah, Sossaman, Merom, and Conroe :)

      http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050608.ar s

    3. Re:This is nice but... by allanw · · Score: 3, Informative

      He said: beyond what the regular 64-bit pentium4 has. Both chips implement em64t the same way.

    4. Re:This is nice but... by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Informative

      First of all, shipping Intel-based machines probably won't even be using the Pentium 4; but:

      http://appleintelfaq.com/#7

      What about 64-bit computing?

      Apple has not forgotten about 64-bit computing, or x86-64. However, Apple is trying to make the initial phase of the transition as simple as possible. 64-bit is a requirement for systems utilizing more than 4GB of RAM, which will be a necessity for some applications in the future, and is currently possible on today's Apple systems; Apple knows 64-bit capability is a requirement.

      http://www.macworld.com/2005/06/features/intelfaq/

      Does this mean Apple's abandoning its commitment to a 64-bit architecture?

      We don't have any specifics yet, but it seems highly unlikely to us that Apple would turn its back on 64-bit chips. Intel offers 64-bit chips and it's almost impossible to conceive that Apple would move backward in this area.

      "Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product." -Dean Reece, Apple

  9. Be? by sootman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  10. Re:now for the real question by rsborg · · Score: 5, Informative
    Which OS runs phtoshop faster?

    Jeebus, this is a no-brainer. Obviously windows... the OSX code is all running under rosetta, unless someone has a nifty CS3 beta or something lying around. What would be more interesting is if someone who writes a cross platform win/mac software could test speed of their app across the two platforms after compiling for intel on OSX...

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  11. Yes... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

    1. Re:Yes... by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hehe. ;-)

      For others who might really not know what it is, this is EFI:

      http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_I nterface

    2. Re:Yes... by tricorn · · Score: 2, Informative

      What I haven't seen is any reason why EFI is better than Open Firmware (better for everyone else, that is - obviously, it is better for Intel since they can control it). The Wikipedia article says that EFI mandates the use of FAT (and, presumably, the ancient creaky ought-to-be-obsolete DOS partitioning format).

      Linux already can boot under OF (e.g. the PPC version of Linux), making that work under an x86 version of OF should be trivial. Loading a BIOS emulator under OF to boot Windows should also be fairly easy to do. Writing a bootstrap loader that implements OF, for old machines that want to boot an OS that only boots under OF, should also be feasible (see e.g. the OpenBIOS project.

    3. Re:Yes... by Drakino · · Score: 4, Informative

      (and, presumably, the ancient creaky ought-to-be-obsolete DOS partitioning format).

      No actually. It uses GUID Partition Table (GPT). http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/storage/GPT_F AQ.mspx is a good link to what GPT is, and also how different versions of Windows supports GPT today. If Apple goes with EFI (strongly hinted at by Apple devs) and GPT, Windows XP 32 will not boot off this solution, however, 64 bit versions will. Given that most of Intels chips will be 64 bit by the time Apple ships consumer products, it looks like this should be fine.

      Dual booting doesn't interest me though, as it's a bunch of wasted time. Instead, I'm more interested in an OS X Apple Intel box that can run DarWine.

    4. Re:Yes... by guuyuk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I haven't read that far into the EFI specification, but I wonder if it provides the same full device tree that Open Firmware provides? The fact that Open Firmware builds a complete device tree fairly early in the boot process allows any loading operating system to more easily identify active devices (which is one of the secrets to the Mac OS's plug&play capability).

      The EFI spec talks about more independent device drivers than what you can do with the current BIOS setup. I'm just wondering how this compares to how it's done in Open Firmware.

      --
      We're sorry, the phone number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try your call again
  12. Now that you can run Windows on a Mac by stratjakt · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!!!!
    1. Re:Now that you can run Windows on a Mac by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't think you'll be seeing that. Macs were better before. Now they've just been sullied. :-)

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  13. Re:now for the real question by FLAGGR · · Score: 2, Informative

    None of the OSX code is running in Roseta. Old PPC binaries for apps that haven't been ported yet is running in Roseta. Photoshop I would have to imagine will work on the release date, or near it.

  14. Apple will be going with Pentium M by green+pizza · · Score: 4, Informative

    No see that would at least make sense...
    You know, go with the Pentium4 ... the perfect choice for your nextgen desktop and laptops...
    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.

    1. Re:Apple will be going with Pentium M by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the low-end Macs are all small, quiet, laptop-like computers. They need Pentium Ms even more than a new PowerMac would! They could get by with common 32-bit single-core ones, though (athough 64-bit would be better, since then every Mac would be so).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  15. Re:I thought this wasn't going to be able to happe by FLAGGR · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, its what they told us WOULD be possible.

  16. The article (in case it goes away) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    July 21, 2005 Multibooting Intel based Macs - A Step-by-step How to Guide Disclaimer: We have read the NDA from Apple and do not see that this violates it. If we are wrong however someone please let us know and we'll happily remove the following. It is NOT or intention to violate this NDA or to make anyone upset. We are only trying to help others in the community by benefiting from the work we have done

    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:
    • Decide what OSes you'll install
    • Mac OS X Intel disk (the one that came with the Intel Mac)
    • Windows XP SP2 CD (if you want XP - we tested with a already SP2'ed disc)
    • Windows XP CD Key (obviously, just being safe...)
    • CentOS 4 CD's (or your favorite distro - we got kernel panic's every time we tried Fedora Core 4 and CentOS worked great)
    • CD Ejection Device (otherwise known as a paper clip - just in case...)

    Notes:

    • You're going to need a Linux install so you can use it's boot loader for your OS selection menu.
    • We had major issues with Fedora Core 4. At first we thought it was an issue with HyperThreading support, and we did a "linux ht=off" at boot. This worked once but never again?!? Joel was also too lazy to make some Slackware CD's with SATA support so we just went with CentOS since we had it handy.
    • Keep the CD Ejection Device handy - Apple thought it was a good idea to remove the button from the DVD drive so the only way to eject a disc if you need to is with the OS or the CD Ejection Device. So if you can't boot into an OS and you want to remove the CD you'll need that...

    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.

    • Boot from the Mac OS X Install DVD
    • Use the Disk Utility within the Installer to delete ALL partitions
    • Use the drop down and select 3 partitions (if you're doing OSX/Windows/Linux) - YOU REALLY ONLY NEED A MAX OF 3!
    • Change the size of the partitions as you desire (make sure to leave room for all your OSes)
    • Set the first and third partition to "free space" - DO NOT FORMAT THEM!
    • Set the second partition to Mac Journeled - name it "OS X" (or what you want)
    • Write the partiton table
    • Exit the Disk Utility
    • Install OS X on the partition you created above (if you have more than 1 disk you did something wrong!)
    • Once OS X is installed and working put in the Windows XP CD and reboot
    • At boot make sure to hit a key so the machine boots from the XP CD
    • Create an NTFS partition on the first empty partition - you'll see the other two - ignore them. The partition you'll create will be called "E:", don't worry...
    • Exit the XP installer (AFTER you've created the partition - DO NOT proceed with setup).
    • Restart XP Setup (remember to press enter on reboot)
    • Now the first partition will be called C: - in
  17. Re:now for the real question by FLAGGR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Considering how much Photoshop is used by mac users (I use gimp however, because I'm cheap) I would assume they're hard at work on it with Apple's devkits.

  18. Re:now for the real question by NitsujTPU · · Score: 2

    Who uses photoshop? Clearly the vast majority of PC users have little use for photoshop.

    It's like 3D Studio Max... It was just a neat piece of software to pirate. Not everyone is an artist.

  19. Re:now for the real question by CypherXero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The GIMP sucks. If you're a true graphic designer, you'll soon realize things you NEED that are only available in Photoshop.

  20. But will it be possible with production hardware? by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  21. tpm: say hello to my little friend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  22. Re:now for the real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because it's open source doesn't make it better. I found Photoshop easy to use and powerful from the first version I worked on, 2.5 I believe. I've tinkering with Gimp and it's interesting but I'd hate to have to depend on it. My productivity would drop like a rock and most of what I depend on in Photoshop just isn't there. There's nothing wrong with Gimp if you're just tinkering for fun but it's not a serious threat for Photoshop in the pro world.

  23. EVERYbody knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  24. Bigger issue by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The bigger issue is that developers have to sign an NDA. I presume that includes discussing the machine, its internals, and so on.

    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.
    1. Re:Bigger issue by Drakino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Question is, why are they having to do this?

      Likely to ensure that any developers living under a rock do find out about it, and get their hands on the technology they need to fully ensure that their Mac application runs on new machines day 1. Apple is very concerned with third party application compatibility on the new platform, as they know many of the Mac users depend on not only Apple solutions, but those also from Microsoft (Office), Adobe (Photoshop) and many others.

    2. Re:Bigger issue by First+Person · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Very simple. Mindshare. Get all the developers focused on the new platform and the transition will happen that much easier and faster.

      --
      Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
  25. i am pretty sure.... by johnpaul191 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... 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.

  26. Re:MS laughs last... by bnenning · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  27. Re:torrent link for eveyone else by archer75 · · Score: 5, Informative

    That particlar torrent is bundled with a trojan.

  28. That's correct by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Both remaining BeOS users report positive results installing BeOS on these machines.

  29. Re:MS laughs last... by ZorinLynx · · Score: 2, Informative

    >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

  30. Eh? Windows on Dev Macs? by 1336.5 · · Score: 2

    I thought develpers were supposed to IMPROVE technology.

    How does it help anyone to put Winblows on the same computer as OS X?

  31. Re:now for the real question by jcr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Keep in mind that Rosetta isn't a PPC emulator. It re-compiles PPC code to x86 code, and it can also recompile at runtime when it spots certain usage patterns. The upshot is, that Rosetta can in many cases end up producing better than 1:1 speed for PPC apps.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  32. Sorry, but you're wrong by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  33. You're almost right... by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  34. Apples Trojan Horse by TinyManCan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  35. Technical question-Partition table? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  36. Re:now for the real question by RichardX · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't really see how those are related, but for what it's worth, I'm vegetarian, and I still think GIMP is Photoshop's bitch.

    --
    Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
  37. Multiboot sucks. Give us VMWare/OSX by Werrismys · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Multiboot is royal pain in the ass.


    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
  38. Scapegoating the 68k/PPC transition by SeaFox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  39. The production macs may be totally different by jjeffrey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  40. One Ring to Rule them all? by gabefung · · Score: 4, Funny

    "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. ;-)

  41. Headed for the Olympics by GeeWhiz · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  42. Confessions of a switcher... by Goth+Biker+Babe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.