Slashdot Mirror
Apple Officially Releases Beta Dual Boot Loader
Slippy Douglas writes "Apparently, Apple has made good on one of the 30th anniversary product rumours. Apple today announced the Boot Camp Public Beta, which allows Intel Macs to easily and legally multi-boot. Boot Camp will be a standard feature in Mac OS X 10.5."
If you can't beat them, join them!
echo YOUR_OPINION >
Perhaps the submitter was getting booting-windows-on-macs with booting-os-x-on-generic-intels - but even that is perfectly legal in most jurisdictions provided you own a copy of OS X.
On a different note, I see on Apple's bootcamp page in the "what you'll need list:"
WTF? 10 GB (well, I guess if the bootloader by itself is 83MB I shouldn't be surprised) and you cant use multidisc or upgrade versions (or even win2k!) I'll wait for the 'hacker' releases thanks Apple!
And on a third note - the screenshots look gorgeous! Would be nice to have grub look this nice (but grub has too much hardware to support I guess)
My pics.
But, some notes:
- Even the existing http://onmac.net/ solution wasn't "illegal" or against any Apple or Microsoft license agreement - not saying the summary said that, but it kind of implied it might be
- The HUGE difference with Boot Camp is that it includes Windows XP driver profiles for Apple-specific hardware - including video drivers! Hello games and video intensive Windows software!
- Another big difference is that it includes a live repartitioning tool so the drive doesn't have to be reformatted to install Windows as the current solution requires
- And, it wraps everything up in a nice "setup assistant"-like interface
- It does burn a custom Windows XP installation disc (no, this does not violate any Microsoft or Windows license agreement, as making custom Windows installation discs has been routine in IT shops for years)
- Currently, it looks like it supports only Windows XP SP2, not any multi-disc XP-based installations (or other non-Windows OSes), but since Media Center is already working with the other solution by making a custom installation disc, I have no doubts that it could work with this as well
It's pretty incredible that Apple has decided to do this, to say the least.
However, the true benefit for many people won't come from dual-booting, but from running Windows (or any other x86 OS) in a virtualization environment alongside OS X with no dual booting or rebooting needed.
Virtualization company Parallels announced that it will be bringing its Parallels Workstation virtualization product to Intel-based Macs. Parallels is a hypervisor-based (with a kernel module) virtual machine solution already shipping for Windows and Linux, and is the first desktop virtualization product to support Intel VT/Vanderpool CPU "partitioning". It's also only $50. Parallels also has a long list of officially supported guest OSes, and that's just the ones that are *officially* supported. So either way, we'll have a nice dual boot solution AND a nice virtualization solution!
So Boot Camp will be standard with Leopard...great. What about the thing that a lot of us actually want, virtualization from Apple, rumored to be in Leopard? And not just virtualization to run x86 OSes, but to also run multiple instances of Intel-variants of Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server (*as well* as any other x86 OS)? Now THAT would be the holy grail. Desktop virtualization for things like Windows and Linux/BSD environments, and server virtualization for multiple Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server instances on a single box.
Since Apple has shown it's been officially willing to acknowledge the alternate OS/Windows universe on Intel-based Macs, I actually have a lot more hope for native, integrated virtualization in Leopard as well!
(/First post.)
Apple's site seems to only specify booting Windows XP. Is boot-camp limited to just that? Or can I boot other x86 OS's as well?
This will change the face of Apple computers. If and only if everything works properly. I think this could be THE paradigm shift for users.
Strahd
ummm... ubantu has worked for a while now.
FP maybe? What I don't get is WHY apple would do this. Apart from the fact that the community has already added this feature on their own, what benefit does this bring Apple? I love the wording on the page, BTW: "Boot Camp will burn a CD of all the required drivers for Windows so you don't have to scrounge around the Internet looking for them."
**** You never REALLY learn to swear until you own a computer. ****
You get the stability of Windows with the value-of-money of Apple hardware. Sign me up.
A bit late for April Fools isn't it? Hell is freezing over...
All this app does is partition the disk, and burn a CD with the drivers that Windows needs to use Apple's hardware. If you want to run Linux, you're still on your own.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
But the contest on booting Windows on Macs made them put this out early?
I may have to get one of those, I've long had a dream of setting up a box of my own to boot Mac, Windows, and Linux OSes. Now I can get a Mac as my next box and not have to listen to my wife complain. I am kind of sad to see them moving to Intel procs now, but I'm not sure why... =\
Steve Jobs just missed out on winning $12,000 in the boot XP on a Mac contest!!! And you know the dude needs the cash since he is only paid $1 a year as Apple's CEO. I bet he is just kicking himself right now.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Damn. We were almost lucky enough to lose a CNET columnist. Oh well, I guess the life insurance policy I took out on him will never come to fruition ...
My work here is dung.
the majority of mac buyers are booting into windows xp/vista because the majority of people use it, apple will have killed a wonderful OS and regulated their systems to nothing more than exotic pc hardware, and we all know how well high end windows notebooks sell. not well. apple has something unique, osx, why encourage people in any way to defoul their mac like that?
If Apple had really been thinking they would have released this sooner to get all that sweet prize money...
I hate to say it, but OMG PONIES! and I mean that....yowza.
For a 30th Anniversary surprise, this is kind of a letdown.
I thought they might release the fastest Apple computer ever, a larger iPod, or even a totally new product altogether.
But I guess we have to settle with Boot Camp Public Beta - hooray.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I'm not sure how i'd feel about having xp boot on my mac. It's like making out with your 2nd cousin, yeah sure you're making out with someone but it just doesn't feel right.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
what benefit does this bring Apple?
they can charge money for it (eventually), either directly or indirectly? They can get windows users to buy their hardware even if they don't want to use their OS (and consequently expose them to OSX even if they wouldn't 'switch' before)?
"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
More sales?
Why would you buy a run of the mill generic PC that can only run Windows, when you can buy a Mac that runs Windows and MacOS X?
What I find hilarious is that Apple's interpretation of the Windows logo is the first time it's ever looked good. This is the ultimate switch campaign. It is so on.
When Intel's Merom/Conroe Core Duos start hitting Macs with Intel VT support, expect Leopard's BootCamp to grow a hypervisor.
Being able to run MacOS X and Windows, at native speeds, will rock my Jesus.
No more apologising for a Mac's inability to play games. W00t.
I thought this must have been some sort of belated April Fools joke, and I still find it hard to believe after seeing it with my own eyes. They must have gotten a hold of that marketing research data that suggested a majority of Windows users would buy a Mac if they could run Windows on it as well.
This will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of Apple, and the various implications of it are astounding to contemplate. Will Windows end up doing more business through single-licenses? Will this further cripple beleagured PC builders? Could this be a ploy by Apple to force Microsoft in the short term to focus on single-user licenses, and in the long term they'll release OSX for manufacturers and completely push it out of the market?
I think we will all be very surprised what the PC landscape looks like 10 years from now, regardless of what happens.
If you buy an Intel-based Mac, what is illegal about dual-booting another OS on it in the first place, hmmmm?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
the best coffee beans in the world come out of a cat's butt.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yes, this version is legal. Doesn't say anything about other versions being illegal.
Just because you inferred it doesn't mean he implied it.
For a second I thought I liked you, until I realized you had it the other way around. =P Not that I should talk, I love Macs just from growing up on them, but I've only ever actually owned Linux/Windows setups. =\
There have been thousands of posts about why MacOS is a nice thing to have. Maybe I like to use an OS that is comfortable on the eyes, updated more often than once a decade, and makes sense from an HCI standpoint? Maybe at work I have programs that only run on Windows, or I like to play games that don't run on Flash. Windows might be a nice thing to have, I mean especially since it runs almost all of the software people use.
No OS is supremely "better" than any other, making the rest look like a pile of horse manure. They are all compromises.
My next notebook will be MacBookPro and John Dvorak might be right!
It's probably Apple's fix for software that isn't available for the Mac but some people still need for business purposes.
Also it will allow some of us who would rather use a Mac, but are forced by some clients, to use Windows software, to have the best machine and a mediocre OS.
Hmm, what happens when the XP part gets a virus? I said "when" not if.
it seems what we have here is a merging of the giants. first they start using the same processores, now they have osx86 and bootcamp. this will either end with merging, or a bitter and fierce battle over patent/copyright issues that will end up decimating both companies and bring little gain to us, the consumers, if not decrease any gain we might have had.
"I worry that some day my child will ask me, 'Dad, where were you when they took freedom of the press from the internet?
Well if you make ubuntu work on this setup i am of to by a mac. Anybody knows?
You've been able to boot linux on the intel macs for some time now.
And it looks like someone has ubuntu running on them allready
However, I think you're not going to have everything working perfectly, I think the video drivers will only be 2d, your remote won't work, nor will the CD eject button, etc etc etc.
If you've got a bit of money & just want ubuntu, buy hardware from a vendor who supports linux.
If you want OS X and Ubuntu, still buy hardware from a vendor who supports linux - but also wait until you can buy copies of OS X tiger that are not tied to the new macbook or iMacs & install that on your generic hardware.
My pics.
Games are a fairly large part of the computer industry. Most games work under Windows, but not Mac OS X. For that reason, I generally tend to use Windows (and sometimes Linux). That said, I think that Mac OS X is a better operating system. I would prefer to be able to use Mac OS X for my regular daily activities, but still have Windows around for playing games. For me, this is perfect, and I for one plan to switch to a Mac the next time I need to buy a computer.
Maybe this helps http://www.mactel-linux.org/wiki/Main_Page
* They are expensive.
* They run MacOS, which doesn't run many of the programs they want/need to use.
Running Windows is the best thing that could ever happen to a Mac. Now people don't have an excuse, they can buy that hot mini they've wanted or grab a powerbook, and never lose all their favorite programs and games. Brilliant.
Now they only produce windows drivers. How long until they port all their applications over to windows and abandone darwin?
Has anyone benchmarks which mesure thread scheduling, file system etc. performance on the same machine?
This is a very good move on Apple's part. It will ease the migration for many from Windows to the Mac os. When you can run the legacy programs from windows, there will be no objection to buying a mac except for the cost. However a mac that can run windows is cheaper than 2 machines, one that can run windows, and one that can run mac os, so this will be a boon to pre-press departments for the newer desktop machines, who often run both o/s
Also if you can run windows, you don't have Office hanging over your head anymore. Microsoft always threatened to stop making Office for the Mac if Apple did anything that they didn't like. Its not like microsoft is going to stop making office for windows.
Also eyebrow-raising, Apple's take on the XP logo:
http://images.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/images/pa
Free, legal music for iTunes users.
I just scanned the page, perhaps should read it more closely, but I'm curious if it would let me multiboot linux and older versions of OS X?
I mean, sometimes you need to have an older version of OS X ( for testing apps ) and hell, linux would be nice, too.
P.S. I like their word to the wise:
P.P.S. I read it more thoroughly. Says nothing of linux or other versions of OS X. And it requires an intel mac.
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
seems I remember that even back in the Copeland days, Apple had tightly held code that allowed winslows to run on the PPC macs. I strongly suspect it's not really a skunk-works operation, but a calculated "black team" Apple has maintained to keep the MacOS folks' feet to the fire. and a Plan B in case they needed allies and/or money fast.
"hey, genius, I can run Windows under two layers of emulation faster than your freakin' routine runs native. optimize or die! I got Pagemaker running without panics and you don't!"
so since there are enterprising uber-nerds with vista alphas running on the Intel macs now, Apple probably figured it was time to protect their kernel and boot loader from hacks and put their own flexible one out.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Because sometimes people send you attachments containing stuff you need in formats only readable by stuff that requires Folgers?
Because you use Folgers at work, and have to take your work home occasionally, and the bottomless cup of coffee is actually incompatable with that? (Actually, I find that an advantage, people don't generally make me work from home, but not all employers are so, ah, "reasonable")
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Now what we really need is Virtualization software to let us run XP in a window, or a compatibilty layer to run applications ala WINE
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
Nomen est omen, eh? 'Cause that really was a bad analogy.
A better (but still incredibly weak) analogy would be so say that it would be like offering a brand new car to replace your old clunker, but with an option to use the old car's snow tyres, trailer hookup and other accessories until you can get ones made to better integrate with your new ride.
In other words, the best use for this is for somebody who has a tonne of Windows programmes that he can't just crossgrade to the Mac, either due to costs or because the developer hasn't made a Mac version yet. This will get that person over on to the Mac, and let them gradually give up Windows instead of making a radical swap.
I've always been a little curious about the whole "I want to run Windows on my Mac". I understand it from the "lets see if we can make it work" engineering challenge point of view. But from a Mac user point of view, have Mac owners really been pining away for the ability to boot into Windows? I dual booted Windows and Linux on my PC for a long time, using Windows for games. But that got to be such a PITA, since I regularly keep lots of applications running. The thought of "I'll just drop into such and such game for 10-15 minutes" is really hampered by dual booting, IMO. Because it's no longer a case of playing a game for a while, and then returning to your working environment to do "regular stuff", it's now a process of closing everything down, waiting for a reboot, logging back in, etc. It may not sound like much, but I found it irritating enough that I removed my Windows partition completely since I was in booted into it so rarely.
:)
I would think the same thing would be true with Macs. If you have a number of applications open and you want to just "jump into Windows" for 10-15 minutes so you can run such and such app, having to first reboot would make it something that I would hardly ever want to do, even with Mac's significantly faster boot up time. Other than in the case of games, I would rather have a second box sitting on the network that I could remote desktop into and transfer files back and forth via a shared folder. Granted, you do have to have another system for that, but picking up some older system that somebody else is getting rid of because of an upgrade would be perfect, after all the system's whole existence would just be for a few apps.
The whole dual boot Mac thing is interesting, but I just don't see why people would want to use it. Of course what that really means is I can't see why I would want to use it.
RFC2119
What I don't get is WHY apple would do this.
One possibility is that there are many people who might be interested in switching to Apple, but won't, because they have a few pieces of software they aren't willing to give up in order to make the switch. This allows those users to switch, but still have access to those pieces of software. (I personally feel that virtuallization is a better route for this, since who wants to have to have to reboot? Still, this at least gives the user an option).
How this actually plays out is anyone's guess. Clearly, Apple doesn't want to become just another Windows hardware vendor. They therefore must position this as a value added to their OS, not the other way around.
Everybody is telling jokes about how late this apple's solution comes, and that they missed the contest.
But the thing is that maybe they just waited for that guy to find a solution and then use it on their own program. Why spend time on a solution if they could just wait for it and then use it? I'm sure those 13000$ are much much cheaper than having some apple's engineers coding their product, and of course in that way they didn't even pay nothing for it. If I remember well the source of the solution to the contest was available too.
Apple will provide Windows drivers so accelreated graphics should be possible. Cool!
This Apple Intel fiasco is like watching a year long trainwreck.
With massive numbers of Mac developers not wanting to or not being able to put out OS X x86 versions of their product/software and now they can just support their entire user base with a single Windows version...
Whoops!
Hope you like Apple i-apps and shareware...
I'm guessing the popularity of this will explode, leading many business and scientific users to switch to Macs. This will probably lead to Apple to add Vista support in mid-2007, even though PC software won't require Vista until 2008 at the earliest.
I doubt we're going to see Linux support form Apple any time soon--they are currently in the denial phase; all big companies seem to go through it when Linux threatens their business. IBM was one of the first companies to get out of it, and it's taken them a few years, but they now have reasonable support for Linux. Sun has gotten out of the denial phase, but they're still hoping they can pull a fast one on Linux. Microsoft is barely out of denial and is making the first signs of accepting Linux as a commercial reality. Apple is still at that stage where they think they can fight Linux with what they think is a "better" product.
This will be the key to allow many corporate people to request Mac computers from a corporate setting that requires Windows for most operation. No more flaming talk about how Macs have no games, no software, etc.
Is this being done to ease the migration of Windows users to the Mac platform or is Apple giving up on the Mac to focus on iPod's and multimedia distribution as their new core business and is now providing an easy way for Mac users to start their migration to Windows?
... in the background come from the half-a-dozen (or so) "port-to-Mac OS X" software projects that are being dropped today. And this will continue tomorrow, of course.
What's Apple's rationale behind this, if there is any at all?
Walter.
I'm a professional Mac user who runs Windows under Virtual PC regularly. Having access to both operating systems strengthens my appreciation of OS X, not the opposite.
I pay for OS X, because it's relatively suck-free. Windows installs grow on trees.
Why would I ditch OS X? If I wanted a free system I'd go back to Linux.
I am from a small, grease-loving country in the north called Ca-na-da.
It would be great to see Apple extend this to Linux support, too. Since this is really a glorified boot loader (albeit a pretty one that finds drivers, too) how much trouble would it be to allow for tri-booting and helping support the F/OS world, too. I don't yet have an intel mac, but this could be handy even on the PPC side.
Some people don't like Apple's sense of humor, but I do. Here is a quote from the Apple page about the BIOS situation. EFI and BIOS Macs use an ultra-modern industry standard technology called EFI to handle booting. Sadly, Windows XP, and even the upcoming Vista, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS. But with Boot Camp, the Mac can operate smoothly in both centuries.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
That let you easily boot into Windows too. Look what happened to that...
I think its so funny that they're using a "camp" boot loader to load a straight OS.
-ac
Ha fools - they should have done this a few weeks ago and earned themselves $12,000. :-)
Isn't this a disincentive to make Mac-native software? Why develop for a tiny fraction of the market when you can develop for the other 95% and wait for the remaining holdouts to install Windows on their Macs?
Excuse me while I burn a little karma. I loved this bit from the web page:
Macs use an ultra-modern industry standard technology called EFI to handle booting. Sadly, Windows XP, and even the upcoming Vista, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS. But with Boot Camp, the Mac can operate smoothly in both centuries.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
I'd much rather have them release a hypervisor, so that people can run multiple operating systems simultaneously and switch quickly between them.
Gah! Don't Apple realise what they've done? Dvorak is going to go absolutely nuts over this!
./ posts the 14th dupe of a story about Dvorak's latest deranged speculation.
You'll be upset too after
I always wonder if photoshop for windows is significantly faster. Or the same games.. Of course the fastest way to run photoshop on a mac book pro/intel imac now is to boot into windows.
I'm betting apple is pretty sure "core image/audio" etc.. will allow mac software to run faster than its windows counterparts, but you never know.
Also will files created on the mac side be accessable by the windows side? How will file permissions work? Lots of questions.
All I can say is wow... I now have a running bet that come October we will start to see the beginnings of the end of OSX - I bet that we see the new Mac systems start comming out with "designed for Windows Vista" stickers on them.
Here's my hypothesis: I think that iTunes/iPod has become more important to Apple (it's their cash cow now) than the Mac line - i think that they believe that they can sell more of their computers with Windows.... and then pre-install iTunes and reach a larger audience for their music store. That's what i'm betting on.
is it before Microsoft just buys Apple????
So, I assume Apple will eventually release Windows drivers for iSight, Bluetooth Keyboard and Mouse, etc etc
The only reason I didn't buy the iSight was because I couldn't use it at home on the Mac and at work on the Windows laptop.
If do this, their sales of those Mac only products will increase...
... to create an alternative ms-windows logo better than the original ! :)
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Why is a great question. I will be upgrading to an Intel-based mac next year and It will be a cold day in hell before Windows gets anywhere near it. I switched to Macs a few years back to get away from Windows.
I guess it could be nice for users that need certain Windows apps -- however I'm afraid that current applications offered for both OS X and Windows will slowly drop OS X support to save on devleopment costs. That would suck.
This is a smart move on Apple's part towards making their computers a bit more ubiquitous. On the other hand, given that Macs now have Intel processors, most of their other internals are shared with PCs and they can run Windows it kind of defeats the purpose of getting a Mac.
Although, this is likely a plan by Apple to get consumers more comfortable with Macs. Switching is no longer the drastic jump it once was and this is a nice way of making the consumer comfortable with OSX. I'm sure a nicely designed PC would attract a lot of people. Maybe we'll finally get other PC makers to take product design a bit more seriously.
Are you willing to put money on that bet, with a contract? I'll take you on if you are.
Because now at least some of the people who would have illegally run OS X on their Windows PCs, will instead consider buying a Mac so they cn run Windows on it.
Or they might just buy a Mac to run Windows on because they think it's better hardware for their needs. The MacBook Pro is a very sexy laptop.
much more likely - 10.5 will run Windows in a sandbox (VMWare/Virtual PC style). OSX for most stuff but Windows (in a window) for that crappy VB6 app that your department depends on
Now that you'll be able to play Windows versions of games on the Mac, what incentive is there for anybody to port games over to the Mac, or even make Mac native games in the first place? I'm sure that gaming is probably pretty low-priority for Apple, but still all the same this is going to probably hurt a few companies that have been supporting the Mac gaming community through all the hard times.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
When I think of "boot camp", I think of a grueling, authoritarian experience. Naturally, a good fit for something that lets you run Windows XP.
Paulo's News: Bringing You the Best of the Mainsternative Media
How could such a modification be illegal if there is no piracy going on, OTHER than with a tv tuner?
This is where apple makes most of their money. If they can get you to buy a intel mac, why would they worry about os sales? Besides with the problems vista is having, this may well result in more pcs on osx.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
"FP maybe? What I don't get is WHY apple would do this."
Because people wanted it. Kinda like when there was such a clamor for a Video iPod. Apple said there wasn't anything in development, then not too long later, Bam!
Also, perhaps this is to ensure that people who are interested in dual-booting don't do any irreparable damage to their systems. "If they're gonna do this, let's at least help them on the way..." y'know?
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
how long has apple been working on this? I'm guessing longer than it took for whoever it was to figure out how to boot XP.
had this been posted 5 days ago, i wouldnt believe it, good thing they waited.
Supplies!
"- It does burn a custom Windows XP installation disc (no, this does not violate any Microsoft or Windows license agreement, as making custom Windows installation discs has been routine in IT shops for years)"
This is a little off-topic, sorry. You can make an unlimited amount of custom XP discs, but just how often are you allowed to use the Product Activation service? I mean, it seems like everytime I reinstall XP these days I got to call Microsoft up for a 60000 digit confirmation number. I'm getting sick of that. It's basically forcing me to give up reinstallations alltogether because of the hassle involved. And yes using Windows Update is critical in determining if a particual install I'm doing will work the way I want to or not since I don't know if I properly installed all the damn hotfixes from my custom made cd or not. Now I got this XP cd years ago and it seems like recently MS is bitching about OEM cd's, like the one I got with a power spitter cable at newegg, being tied to only one montherboard. Swap the MB out (like I have 4 times due to shitty MB's), and I would have been forced to by a new CD 4 times? Why didn't they clarify that years ago? Doesn't sound like a FULL OS if it's so restricted in reinstalls or upgrades you can do you your machine. I swear, I bitched about this issue to their manager when I was forced to do a reinstall AGAIN just after I bought a new creative soundcard which was the last piece of my major upgrade last November(found out it was a bios issue with my Abit MB).
I'm tired of calling them up and 'making up an excuse'. Why should I be forced to? Are custom CD's only good for like businesses that don't have to deal with this shit? Would paying $300 for the full retail version of XP/Vista solve this problem?
This is nice and all, but Apple just killed off any remaining incentive to develop or port native OS X games. What game developer in their right mind would bother, knowing that two or three years from now every Mac with up-to-date graphics hardware will also be able to run Windows?
All is Number -Pythagoras.
Pick up the Windown XP CD and strike down your Mac OS... then your journey to the dark side, will be complete.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
If you were thinking of buying a mac, but wern't sure... This might push you over. Like the OS9 -> OSX transition, eventually you stop using the older stuff. Apple is hopint that eventually you stop using the windows stuff.
You can't make out with your sister okay? Just learn to accept that 2nd cousin is the closest you can legally get in the US of A.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If Apple consider itself so greatly better than anything else in the universe, what is the need to get their hands (and products) dirty with a full install of Windows? It's like a BMW saying: "you are driving the finest cars of ours. But just in case you can run old, obsolete, Chevy engines in it now". Nothing wrong with it, really, I understand the purpose of making their machines more attractive to windows users. But that's where the problem is. Macs and MacOSX, per se, are not enough to lure windows users, which will keep buying cheap boxes, with Windows in it. The rest of the "we are great, we are god" kind of Apple's attitude starts to be a bit tiring. Apple is just another PC maker, one of the many. It's not the holy grail. If it were, they wouldn't need windows to show it.
hehehehe :)
After 30 years of work, we get the ability to boot Windows?
Gee, thanks.
Just tried 5.10, not working, installer can't see the disk.
To get back to Mac OS X:
1. Press Power to shut down
2. Press Power to start, then hold trackpad button
3. CD will be rejected
4. Press Power to shut down again
5. Press Power to start, then hold option key
May probably be used to run the LiveCD though.
IBM killed OS/2 by making it VERY easy to run Windows apps under it. As a direct result of that, noone bothered developing applications for the OS/2 platform.
Fucking companies never learn from their mistakes. This is going to result in the same "success" for Apple. People will be excited to be able to dual boot OS/X and Windows. Except all of their applications will be in Windows. So everytime they need to "use" the computer they will boot in Windows. Everytime the want to "play" with it they may boot into OS X. This will result in people spending 90% of their time in Windows and 10% (if even that) in OS X. This will result in Apple just being an "expensive" PC maker that will eventually kill them or knock them back into their niche.
I know alot of people disagree with me - but before you just immediately jump down my throat I BEG you to look at the history of OS/2. If that is too old for your taste, look at Linux now. Please do not get me wrong - I AM a fan of Linux. However, why do you suppose it has failed to catch on so far? Its a better platform, drivers are finally available (in most cases, not all), and where is the software? No major companies are developing because people just "boot" into Windows to get work done and switch to Linux to play. I know, YOU (or I) do not. But your joe-sixpack typical user does.
I've said it before (and been modded down) and will say it again: Worst. Idea. Ever.
So, before you mod me down or immediately jump down my throat and you tell me how this now allows you to run Photoshop, I offer you this: I provided you two instances (OS/2 and Linux) where this approach (with allowing Windows to remain an "easy" out) has failed. Please explain to me why I am wrong - or better yet. Show me another example where this worked.
I fear that the availability of Windows on Mac hardware could cause companies like Adobe or Macromedia to quit there Mac OS X application ports and in the long run harm Mac OS X.
Is it just me or is the onmac boot loader a little cuter then this. The Selecter switch with the two hds is nice but you dont get the feal. I hope someone makes that look better. Also if the above post is correct and it needs 83 MB the OnMac version takes much less. Sure the install is not as pretty but it has a good method of doing it.
I guess the kicker in this case was the drivers that Boot Camp gives. Oh well. Now its official but its good to see that hackers (people who just mod software for fun) got it to work first. Apple is just being nice now.
Procrastinating life a way at a rapid rate of speed.
i agree that Apple is probably doing it to make potential switchers feel safer after taking the plunge, or those people that "need" windows for work or school, but want to use a Mac when they can.
remember the iPod timeline. iTunes for the Mac existed for a while before the iPod was released. i forget how long it was, but for a while Apple did not make software for it to work with MS Windows, they suggested a 3rd party app. they eventually released iTunes for MS Windows, and the public theory was that they thought it would help sell a lot more iPods, and possibly show MS users how nice Apple software can be. anyone running Windows can download and use iTunes for free if they own an iPod or not.
maybe they learned from the iPod experience that some people are really tied to windows for one reason or another (at least some of the time). there are people out there that would buy a Mac for the hardware, and run MS Windows 99% of the time. not too many i am sure, but there are some. the rumor sites had some mentions of Apple hooking up with some hardware benchmarking people that previously did stuff for windows. maybe Apple wants to try to run MS Windows faster than some Dell or whatever AND be able to boot the Mac OS. it really is the end of the "Apples to oranges" argument of PPC vs x86.
i also don't see why this boot loader can't support some form of Linux, though i don't see Apple going out on a limb for it. holding down the option (alt) key during startup boot loader has been in the Mac OS for years. it would show you all the partitions with a valid OS install. i used to use it a lot when i had to bounce between OS 9 and OS X. it's easier than opening system prefs, selecting a startup disk just to do something for an hour in OS 9 then reverse the situation to go back to OS X.
The ability to easily (and "officially santioned") multiboot is fantastic for me. Especially if it worked with free OS loaders for Linux and the BSDs as well.
My own situation: I'm a faculty member with both research and teaching labs in computer security, where we often muck about with various settings and try different combinations of machines on a network. If I could have one piece of hardware which would boot (without fighting with it too much) Mac OS X, different Windows flavors, Linux, the BSD's, and Solaris x86, that would be fantastic. Right now I have separate (and seriously aging) hardware for Apple stuff. Stick a 300 gig drive on that baby and have a bunch of partitions.... hmmmm...
When it's time for a lab upgrade, this will be something I have to look at very seriously. The "official blessing" does mean something to me -- I wouldn't want to invest in 15 machines for a lab and then have Apple come back later and throw in incompatibilities because they decide they don't like the unofficial multiboot solutions (think about what they've done with the iPod and Real as far as incompatibilities).
Now if that hardware would just support virtualization (Xen or something) to make this even easier, I'd be one seriously happy camper.
HFS+: OS X uses it; XP doesn't recognize it
FAT32: Both OS X and XP can read and write to it, but it has limits in partition size and doesn't allow for files larger than 4GB (no DVD backup for you!)
NTFS: Both OS X and XP can read it, but OS X can't write to it
One solution is MacDrive, which allows Windows to read and write to HFS+. But I'd rather that OS X be able to write to NTFS.
Virtual PC lets you move stuff back and forth, but it has inferior performance and some software doesn't work with it (Thayer's guide to birds of North America doesn't run under VPC, for example). And of course VPC doesn't work on the Intel Macs at all.
Still, being able to run Windows is *excellent* news for Apple and for OS X. It means more people will buy Macs because many need to run Windows for specific applications but would rather use OS X for everything else. If they can address the filesystem incompatibility and get the OSs to run concurrently without any performance hit, Apple's market share will skyrocket.
i was just thinking about the market share they will certainly steal from wintel manufacturers; especially in the education market.
dell won't have an OSX on dell-crap option. seems like a no brainer for new pc buyers.
university computer labs can just use macs and let the students decide what OS they want.
which makes me wonder... can both OSes be remotely administered. wake-on-lan+OS???
One concern: This recent topic of discussion: " http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/16/ 1826257" on slashdot is linked to an article that gives me the creeps by presenting sound logic for ditching OS X, keeping their interface and plopping it on top of MS Windows. If that happens, I will go scurying back to Slackware like "insert something clever or funny here".
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Now I'm really interested in seeing Windows games' benchmarks running on MacIntel computers. In theory, they would have a performance impact since there's a new "layer", correct? What about DirectX drivers?
And while you're at it, why not add all applications, not just games. Especially if Leopard includes a virtualization environment, or if a Wine-like solution becomes popular, it would be so easy to run Windows software that users might hardly notice when an app is for Windows or OS X. In that environment, why would software vendors spend any resources on a special Mac port? Remember OS/2?
How's that for some great numbers ???
-- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
Anyone remember the "PowerPC" Macs, with the ability to dual boot into MS-DOS or MacOS? They used to sell "PC Compatibility cards" that went in some of the PowerMacs, which were basically en entire PC on a card slot, complete with memory SIMMS, VGA video (output along-side the on-board Mac video output via a splitter cable), and even a PC joystick port.
To me, this whole thing is reminiscent of those days.
Wow. I can't wait to see where this all goes in the near future - I'm of the camp where I'd like to try OSX, I just can't justify spending that much $$ on a machine that I can't guarantee I'd get my money's worth out of. Same with linux - I want to switch, but I do have a handful of things that I can't do in it. With this development, I think I will very much consider a MacBook Pro for my next laptop purchase. The possibilities of using OSX for most of my stuff, but being able to do my .NET development in native XP on the same box would be awesome. Granted, I still think virtualization of some sort would be better (natively or VMWare, I don't care), but this is a step in the right direction!
This is good for schools that currently have to have both Windows and Apple machines in a classroom or lecture hall because some teachers use one, while others use the other. And the virtualization of Windows on Apple will only make it easier to switch between the two.
"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." -- William Butler Yeats
But what would be the advantage of running Linux vs. the BSD-based MacOS X?
"More stable"? I thought that's what MacOS X was famous for. "Nicer interface"? Same response.
I can understand how someone might want to escape Windows for Linux, but I don't understand craving that Linux experience when you have a Mac.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Goodbye Mac OSX. We hardly knew thee.
64 bit vista has EFI
32 bit vista does not
What are you talking about? Linux doesn't threaten Apple in any way whatsoever. Apple's a hardware company, the Mac OS is just a selling point. Why on earth would they care which OS you want to use on your computer? Answer: they don't, and that's why they're releasing this product.
The big difference here is that this capability sells Apple-branded hardware, just as the iTunes Music Store sells iPods. IBM was trying to sell the other operating system. Apple is not selling the other operating system, they are selling the hardware to run it on, and indirectly, their own operating system and future upgrades to it.
--- What?
I don't want to have to dual-boot... I want VMWare on OS X. I could run several sifferent machines with windows, linux, etc all at the same time. I do it now on windows - the only one missing is OS X. Having that as a host would be enough for me.
Actually, I think what's being said around Apple is "If you can't join them, beat them." Many people here are focused on the "war" between Mac OS and Microsoft, forgetting that Apple is mostly a hardware company and Microsoft is mostly a software company. Recall that Microsoft developed software for Macintosh first (MS Word) before porting it to MS DOS/Windows.
Apple's Boot Camp is a knife in the hearts of other hardware makers: Dell, Gateway, HP, Sony. The belief (warranted or not) that Apple has the best computer hardware bar none is widespread and even formerly independent Alienware is going to have a hard time competing with a top-of-the-line quad core Intel machine from Apple.
With Apple Boot Camp, Microsoft will keep making the money from Windows bundling and sales it always has (Apple Boot Camp also solidifies Microsoft's Office stronghold), and Apple will continue making money from hardware sales. The possible change under Apple Boot Camp is that Microsoft may increase its sales, especially among Mac OS diehards who won't touch PCs. I worked in a PC shop from 1997-2001 and I cannot stand Microsoft Windows. However, I would purchase a university-provided license to dual boot Windows Vista. I'm betting there are at least a few hundred thousand Mac users just like me.
Dell now has real reason to be worried as they can't survive on that razor-thin margin without huge volume, and I'm betting sales of Apple hardware are going to spike very soon.
blog
Well, for one thing the apps in Adobe Creative Suite 2 are not Universal Binaries, and won't be until the release of CS3 later this year (or next). Many graphics shops (historically Apple's core market)are holding off until then to buy any Intel-based Macs because while Rosetta can run Photoshop CS2, it's just painfully slow. My guess is that Apple is releasing this Boot Camp deal to 'sweeten the pot' for those who are waiting for Universal releases of their favorite multi-platform software.
In the latest edition of Ben Graham's landmark text on investing, The Intelligent Investor, the editor actually classified Steve Jobs a CEO who's overpaid. The value of the stock options given to Jobs guaranteed him vast wealth regardless of the company's future performance. Free stock shares are like free lottery tickets, they can either win or do nothing... unlike lottery tickets though, they can be sold if they don't win. With the amount of shares Jobs was given, he's bound to win... regardless if the company succeeds or not.
Why bother? Windows has basically taken over Apple's former monopoly, the Education Market. I am a computer technician for the local public school district. We have two choices and only two choices; Windows or Mac. Linux is not an option because we have applications which are required by the department of public instruction and they only run on Windows or OS 8.1-9.2.2. That's right, no OSX support. Before these education programs were a requirement, most of our computers we Macs. The ability to dualboot OSX and Windows under a supported environment (10.5) would be wonderful. I think a lab of Mac Minis running OSX and Windows would allow our district to have our cake and eat it too. For general computing we could use OSX along with our xServe. When the specialized applications are needed, we could boot into Windows and authenticate to the same xServe. I'm getting excited!!
Can someone try this with Windows 2000, just for the hell of it?
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
I hope to God/Jobs you aren't right, but I fear you might be. On the other hand, Apple appears to be betting that people like OS X more than Windows, and that by doing this they can get more people to buy Macs, increase their market share, and maybe even turn the tables on the application porting equation.
All is Number -Pythagoras.
First if you run OSX & XP side by side, OSX highlights windows short comings, like people b i t c h about finder, but they've never really had to use explorer in a pressured environment.
Also when booting to XP, a magnitude of features aren't supported, IR remote, backlit keyboards, usb modems, bluetooth mice+keyboard, etc heck the brightness keys will stop responding if you just change keyboards.
Finally in OSX you can as a minimum read your windows files(can't write to NTFS, but can write to FAT), in Windows you can't see any of your mac files. This becomes tiresome quickly.
The idea is that people who really need to run that occassional windows app are able to, which fills a nice void as Virtual PC doesn't run under Intel macs at the moment.
I suppose the best target market are laptop users who hate the s h i t PC laptops out there but still have to use windows at work. They can buy their mac, enjoy their photos, music and web stuff by night aka front row and the iLife suite. Then their bozo IT manager at work in the day can work with the machine like it's just another windows box.
It's sorta like batman, all boring in the day at work. Then at night he's off in the cool car, with the toys/gadgets saving lives.
Ok, I've read the page and saw Apple's stock shoot up. I'm psyched. But now the next question on my mind: with the Apple-provided drivers, how good will these boxes run games? Someone get a 3DMark running on one of these things.
We've already seen that World of Warcraft as a Universal binary runs extremely well (in some cases up to 50% fps improvement). With properly-tuned drivers, I could only assume it'd run as well.
And keep in mind, I'm primarily a Windows user, even though I like MacOS (and recommend it to my family). Today's announcement encourages me to use a Mac fulltime for myself.
To all the people thinking that this is the end of OS X, the end of gaming, "just like OS/2", etc., the difference is that, to me, this changes nothing...I use OS X as my native environment 95% of the time. The other 5% is using specific Windows software that will not ever see a Mac port.
That I can use my Mac to boot natively into XP to use that app is a huge win; I don't need to keep a POS Dell around just for that one app on Windows. Plus, assuming the MacBook is built like my PowerBook, it'll work for me for years as a war horse that can take the punishment I have inflicted on it (hello round-the-world photo shoot, using the PB as my darkroom and portfolio case)
Remember, Apple is a hardware company...they make real stuff that comes in padded boxes. That they can make both kick-ass hardware, *and* a kick-ass operating system doesn't change the fact that, rightly or wrongly, Windows and Dell are still the kings of the hill. Apple has saved me from having to buy a new PC *and* a new copy of Windows with it. That's less money for Microsoft and Dell, and more for Apple (when I get my MacBook).
Seems like a pretty smart move to me.
Has anyone installed this yet? I'm very, very curious of the performance of the video cards under windows with the Apple drivers.
but also wait until you can buy copies of OS X tiger that are not tied to the new macbook or iMacs & install that on your generic hardware.
Don't hold your breath.
Apple software has become more closely tied to the hardware as of late, not less. Nobody has seemed to make a big deal out of it (that I've seen) but Frontrow is the first piece of Apple software that I've ever seen that's intentionally designed to only run on one particular model Mac, even though other models are perfectly capable of running it.
Apple doesn't sell computers and operating systems, they sell devices that do stuff.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"no one buys them '
No one?
[BootCamp] - "Are you sure you want to Boot Windows?"
[User] - Clicks "Yes"
[BootCamp] - "Are you really sure you want to leave your nice safe shiny virus and trojan free environment?"
[User] - Clicks "Yes"
[Bootcamp] - "You must be crazy, but you were warned"
[User] - Chases the "I'm really sure" button around the screen until finally giving up and clicking the "No way Give me MacOS" button
Mac starts up to the sound of Handels Messiah
"If it's lost, it'll turn up. Things always do" "I love it when a plan comes together"
It just occured to me that software vendors could write OS X software designed to access the windows drive and clean it of viruses, spyware and other nasty stuff. Definitely a money maker.
How does the iMac's Radeon X1600 video card measure up? The lack of games available on the Mac was the last hurdle for me to make the switch to Apple. Can I get a good 3D graphics experience out of an iMac running the Radeon X1600? How does it stack up to some of the higher end Nvidia graphic solutions?
Is there a big barrier to doing the converse, i.e. running OS X on commodity x86 hardware? If the answer is no, then does this imply that Apple is completely changing its business model from integrated software/hardware to independent software and hardware?
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
This is great news for Microsoft, they now have another wintel manufacturer in the stable -- some customers buy the cheapest machines available, while others go for the faster and other now have a choice of an attractive design. Apple is just another wintel box assembler. Buy the mac, through away the free OS included and run windows.
And why should MS continue to develop Mac Office? For $125 (student/teacher) you can buy the Windows OS and then run the PC version of Office. The same is true for all the other "fringe" software; just add $200 to cost and bundle it with the Windows OS, then every software vendor can claim Mac compatibility.
In the end this will just increase MS share of the OS market and decrease the availability of Mac OS software.
maybe even turn the tables on the application porting equation.
What they would need to turn the tables is a credible cross platform application framework, or at the very least a VM that runs under Windows. They don't have that, so the default option for developers would still be Windows...
Correction to the correction: Windows 2003 Server 64-bit has EFI. Everyone assumed that the same kit would be in Vista. Everyone except Microsoft, that is.
I totally agree with you on this; it'd be great if VMWare makes an OS X version or if Apple uses something like Xen themselves; I'll take what I can get, but what I want is to not have to actually reboot out of OS X just to run one crummy Windows-only app and lose all my other apps, like email, chat, etc....
However, I think you're not going to have everything working perfectly, I think the video drivers will only be 2d, your remote won't work, nor will the CD eject button, etc etc etc.
The eject button doesn't work on any Linux distro!!
For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
I fear for Apple's business. It's been 'doomed to fail' for decades by the uninformed (and those who just plain don't get it), but I always stood firm on my faith. But this...this truly scares me. Cue death countdown and Dvorak commentary.
It won't kill the Mac game market in part because it involves effort and money (buying Windows XP) and you won't be able to buy a Mac already set up to dual-boot, so the vast majority of Macs will not be able to boot into Windows. If a game developer wants to tap the Mac market, they're still going to have to produce Mac versions of their software. There's always been problems with game developers not seeing the Mac market as worth their time, but this advent is not going to change that situation one way or the other. The developers currently make Mac games are going to continue doing so, and those currently not making Mac games will continue to not produce them, unless the Mac marketshare grows substantially.
If Mac marketshare does grow substantially, perhaps in part as a result of this new capability, then the incentive to produce Mac-native versions of games will increase, not decrease. You don't buy an Intel Mac because you want to run Windows on it. You buy one because you want to run Mac OS X on it, but you may also like being able to run Windows as needed. The less needed, the better.
--- What?
I used to think this as well. You can boot your Mac into Darwin without the UI, you can run almost any POSIX compliant app. With Fink, you can compile hundreds of applications.
But then I realized it, some people just like linux. There is a certain allure to it.
Apple is clearly comfortable that they have a superior platform that will can win more Windows converts. Boot Camp is the first of many Windows integration tools that will allow Windows oriented Intel Mac buyers to function as they evolve into pure Apple customers. Expect virtualization and emulation tools to allow Windows apps to run on Mac OS to follow. It is Apple's turn to embrace, extend, and extinguish.
an ill wind that blows no good
I've never seen it go this fast, it told me "Setup will complete in approximately: 36 minutes, and then 2 minutes later it was down to 19.
I need to run Cakewalk's Sonar to deal with some projects I'm recording. I generally use Ableton Live in OSX, but I need to be able to open Cakewalk bundles too. Hey look, now I can....
Thank you, Apple.
"Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it'll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft Windows security fixes."
Well said, Apple.
I wonder how massively cripling viri and malware infections on the Windows partition could potentialy damage or even wipe out the OS X partition. Perhaps it is now possible to infect windows with a virus that is designed to attack the helpless OS X partitiion?
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
I've got a Mac and a Windows machine on my desktop, with a KVM switch. I use a Mac keyboard (Extended Keyboard II, of course), which has some interesting consequences on Windows: the Ctrl key is mapped to Windows Ctrl, the Option key is mapped to Alt, and the Command key is mapped to the Windows key (the one that opens the Start menu). .NET framework???)
This makes the keyboard rather counterintuitive: on the Mac, Cmd is the most common modifier key (Cmd-O for Open, etc.), and it's next to the spacebar.
When I use Windows, the same functions are mapped to a different place on the keyboard (Ctrl). The result is that I keep having the Start menu pop up when I want to use a modifier.
I haven't found a good solution for this (the only keymapping program I could find for Windows required me to install the
I wonder if such a mapping option (or a keyboard driver with sane mappings) is present in Bootcamp.
I wonder if this will work for Vista when/if it ever comes out?
I want to hear reports of performance! How well does Oblivion run on the MAC?!?
Can't believe nobody is talking about this : I think it would be a great idea to launch the same product with a Linux distro. I know you can install Linux on Mac Intel already, but it's the same kind of 'hack' than Windows was before BootCamp. Get Apple to provide the proper (binary, sorry RMS) drivers and package a full Linux distro in there. And you get profit...
Great slogan:
"The only computer with 3 different worlds built-in"
What do you all think?
you treat people right by giving them MORE options, including the ability to run the main rival OS, you gain significantly in kudos from people like me (and others who consider products based on their merits). It may sound silly, but the ONLY hurdle (missing audio/graphics drivers in MBP) to buying a MacBook Pro laptop has just been removed for me. Who knows, I may in fact be much more inclined to use OS X a ton and write apps for it than ever before.
When you treat potential customers right, you have no idea how great that is for you in the long run...
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
The reason for this is that all IPC, all thread-related operations, and many system calls rely on the Mach port mechanism. Sending a Mach message requires a lot of checking of port rights, and so is The cost of a Mach message send is about ten times the cost of a traditional UNIX system call.
For most applications, this won't be a problem, but as soon as you start swapping OS X slows right down (because the VM subsystem is in the Mach part of the kernel and uses ports extensively). Likewise, if you are running something very I/O intensive, something that does a lot of thread locking, or anything that uses a lot of system calls, then it will be much slower on OS X than Linux, BSD, or pretty much any sane kernel implementation (including second-generation microkernels, such as L4).
Mach is the nicest kernel design I've seen, on paper. It is elegant, and nicely abstracted. Unfortunately, this comes at a significant cost, which can be relatively easily avoided.
[1] A volume renderer that made extensive use of mmap and madvise for handling very large datasets.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
But then I realized it, some people just like linux. There is a certain allure to it.
Maybe because it is free?
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
In my experience, most Unix/Linux users aren't all that fond of the "nicer" Apple interface. The ones I've seen bought one for the same reason I did, because it was a cheap Unix laptop that "just works" and is of decent quality. Which is currently harder to do with Linux because of the exotic hardware.
:)
Why a Unix user would buy a Mac desktop machine is beyond me though. Unless he has a need for some piece of software that is bound to Mac OS (the photo management thing that was recently released looks nice).
Of course there are exceptions everywhere
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
You are correct, sir.
t ml
The product I'm thinking of was the "DOS Card" for the Power Macintosh 6100/66 (and a bunch of other similar systems with an '040 Processor Direct Slot). Basically it's a 486 system on a card, packaged with a bunch of DOS drivers for the hardware Apple was using at the time.
I used one back in the day and it was pretty slick. You just pressed a hotkey, IIRC it was Command-Enter, and you could switch back and forth between DOS/Windows and MacOS. I even think you could cut and paste between them (sometimes, if you did everything right and the planets were in the right alignment). You could get the card both as an addon for a regular 6100 or there were special "6100 DOS Compatible" editions with the card pre-loaded.
I just googled and here's some more background info:
http://www.renewingmind.com/quadrados/quadrados.h
It says that with the card, you could run MS-DOS, Win 3.1 and Win95. I don't think I ever saw 95 running with one, but I definitely played some DOS games using it. For its time, it was pretty neat.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
With Apple's release of Boot Camp, tens of thousands of Windows users are ditching their Dell notebooks and hopping on the MacBook bandwagon, leading to a record increase of Smug in the atmosphere. Lets just pray to God George Clooney doesn't buy a MacBook.
Mac OS XI -- Spinal Tap
This one goes to 11!
A new lawsuit with Apple Records will start in anticipation of version 11.4 being nick named the "Fab Four".
I agree with the file system issue stated below. I'd like for the file system to work across the two OS's. That said, I just went out and priced a macbook pro, a system I had considered marginal up till now. The ability to run windows software is just too important. Having it all in one machine is just too great a value proposition to pass up.
This may be due to all the other hacks on my MacBook Pro to get Windows loaded, but I don't know.
All it does is make my power LED flash a couple of times and then BEEP, but then continues to boot without the promised progress bar.
Failure!
I'm going to try the firmware restoration CD now (also a recently available download) to try and fix this.
I'm sure many other onmac.net users will sit in the same boat as me...
The only reason for Apple not allowing XP booting would be if Apple were truly scared. If it thought that OS X wasn't up to snuff and the OS X applications (iLife, iWork et al) were lame, then it should shy away from Windows booting. Instead it is trusting its technology and giving its users more options.
Perhaps Dvorak was right and this is really just another step in the process of Apple gradually dumping OS.X for Windows Vista? Think about it, if Dvorak just blabbers on for long enough he has to come up with something that makes sense (as in the monkeys/typewriters/Shakespere-sonnet parable). He was right about the Intel switch so what we have to ask our selves is: What are the odds of Dvorak stumbling onto the truth about Apples plans twice in the same decade??
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Let's not confuse the issue with facts.... this is slashdot afterall.
"The powerbook is the hottest laptop to exist on this PLANET."
Perhaps they need a couple more fans then. My iBook gets toasty warm as it is.
Seriously, you're on some preetty heavy drugs if you think someone would buy a Mac and then trash OS X for windows. Windows is crapware! have you used it? Obviously not!!
If you're running a specific application that requires the performance boost, then you ought to be running it on a machine that that runs the best environment. Unless, I suppose, you're running an app that you only need occasionally.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
You can multiboot older versions of OS X right now, without using this. Just make a new partition, install a version of OS X there, and don't upgrade it.
Any time you want, you can go into the System Preferences / Startup Disk panel and choose which drive and OS version you want to boot up on. It lists the version underneath the name of the drive.
Depending on how new your computer is, you can have several versions of OS X and OS 9 all listed there, and you can boot into any one you want.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"Unless, I suppose, you're running an app that you only need occasionally."
Or you're running an app during the day to pay the bills, but want the same computer to be useful in the evening when you're done.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Graphics support will have to rely on framebuffer support (No accelerated 2D for you! And 3D? Forget it.).
The comment about CD support is off- you can issue ejects from the command line or from KDE/Gnome/etc.
In reality, anything with an ATI GPU chipset's a bad idea for Linux users. While I honestly appreciate Matthew Tippett's efforts in this regard at ATI (I'd have NO 3d otherwise on my laptop...), it just doesn't compare to NVidia's results . ATI's drivers simply do not perform as well as the Windows counterparts and suffer from odd quirks if you're a laptop user (I've got 128Mb of "SidePort" integrated RAM- the Linux drivers don't seem to be able to use it; I've got to turn on UMA support in the BIOS and use the 128Mb it provides... WHY? I don't have to do that under Windows.) And it's not because he's not killing himself to get it great for us- he's woefully understaffed and it's my understanding that ATI's not seeing more of a potential market than they do so they're not hiring more right at the moment.
I, as a professional games developer, can't reccomend people buy ATI right now for Linux machines- it's just not supported well enough right now. Now, that might change in a couple of months' time- I just don't see it happening yet from them with past experience.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Wow, 83MB download for this.
- Finished searching for:
- Total instances found:
Now before everyone says, "No way Apple is going to support Linux" notice that they don't claim to support Windows either, "Remember, Apple Computer does not sell or support Microsoft Windows." http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ -- so why wouldn't they have docs on how to install Linux instead of Windows? It must be pretty trivial seeing as how it's already been done, and it even runs Gnome now. I know, having Mactels dual boot XP will sell tons more Apples, but I'll wait until Boot Camp 'officially' provides Linux support (or until Ubuntu has an install) and then I'll trade in my 800Mhz iBook (running OS X / Ubuntu Linux) for a new Mac(tel)Book. I need to run Windows on a Mac like I need a hole in my head.Linux
0
fak3r.com
It's because this new logo looks more like a warning sticker that you'd find on a can of Raid, or at the top of a very dangerous ski slope, and thus is appropriate for Windows.
It's not that it's beautiful; that would just be ironic.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
No, you DONT make a custom Windows installer, you do need burn one with the Mac specific drivers. After Windows is installed, you insert this CD and it installs all the drivers.
Note: If you want OSX to read/write the to the Windows Partition, keep it under 32 GB, so you can use FAT32.
I use a XP Home OEM CD, works fine. Yes, with the drivers, it is nice and fast.
To take advantage of this feature you'll still require a very important piece of software. Windows. Guess who makes that, Microsoft. So they win either way :) It's just another PC you can install Windows on. The people who should be most concerned are the likes of Dell et al.
And this is the first public beta. No doubt by the time we see Leopard, this thing will be rocking along.
The future looks bright in Cupertino, CA... what will they think of next...
Join the Digital TV discussion @ http://forums.dvbowners.com
So this will allow someone to buy a really expensive computer, and run a really crappy OS on it.
I'd be much more interested in being able to run OSX on stock x86 hardware, thank you.
In the last two days we've had microsoft releasing support for running virtual OSes like Linux and Apple releasing support for dual booting windows. So now, you could run a virtual linux server, through windows running natively, on a mac -- with the 'blessings' of both Apple and Microsoft. I know it's obvious but seeing it like in print like this is still pretty incredible.
Narf is clearly Pinky, therefore Blanka must be the Brain. I'd be very careful about installing anything those two came up with -- it's clearly part of some kind of plot.
Isn't this a disincentive to make Mac-native software? Why develop for a tiny fraction of the market when you can develop for the other 95% and wait for the remaining holdouts to install Windows on their Macs?
This isn't a disincentive because people buying macs by default get OS X and have to work to get XP.
Most people will just stick what the computer comes with.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
n/t
At Macworld in January, MS committed to building a Mac version of Office for another five years. Was this information known then? Will it change anything? Remains to be seen, but the MacBU is profitable and as long as that's the case, there doesn't seem to be any reason (other than spite) to kill Office on the Mac.
Two, Apple computer are trying to get Windows users to buy a Mac. This beta release helps them accomplish this goal. A windows user can walk into the Apple Store, buy a iMac, walk out and buy Windows XP from bestbuy, go home and download Bootcamp, install Windows XP, use Windows XP, and then finally realize Windows is a piece of crap and switch to MacOSX.
Quote from Macworld Article:
\
I don't have a mac, but I could see using one for work-- and dual-booting later for games. The things I'd use both OSes for are almost entirely mutually exclusive.
"Please forgive me the stupid question--I haven't used a Mac for ten years now.
But what would be the advantage of running Linux vs. the BSD-based MacOS X?
"More stable"? I thought that's what MacOS X was famous for. "Nicer interface"? Same response. "
You forgot to mention FASTER, but in my experience Linux is AT LEAST as stable and has UI advantages too. My iBook 600 Mhz G3 running Debian Linux is in many respects more responsive than my year-old Powerbook 1.5 Ghz G4 running OS X. I'm sure if I were to run a benchmark measuring raw horsepower the Powerbook would still win, but for day to day web browsing, moving files around, etc, the iBook/Linux is the champ.
I've already made up my mind that this Powerbook will be my last Apple computer (unless they change... I'd seriously consider any laptop or desktop that manages to nicely package multiple PPC Cell processors for example) and as a corollary, this current version of OS X that I have will be the last version of OS X. I suspect that future versions of OS X will start to favor the Intel chips and may be slow, buggy, or feature-lacking for the PPC systems.
I have trouble thinking of any important ways in which the OS X user interface is superior to KDE if you are the type that likes lot and lots of doo-dads, in fact in many ways KDE has more of these "cute" features and allows a much greater degree of user customization that OS X (which by design seriously limits how much the user can change). But if I prefer a stripped down GUI I can get that too with Linux, or if I want to run the thing as a server I can get rid of the GUI completely and free up gobs of memory and disk space (oh, did I mention my iBook has 256M of memory while the Powerbook has a Gig?)
Apple users used to be able to brag about the superiority of their computers which lasted for years and years while poor PC users had to be constantly upgrading their hardware to keep up with software changes or their software to keep up with hardware changes. Well, now the shoe is on the other foot. It has only been a couple years since Apple users stopped complaining about the demise of OS 9 (isn't that what it was called?) Now every few months we have to listen to weeks worth of speculation regarding whether the next machine will have Firewire ports, or Bluetooth, or can I get EVDO, not to mention, of course, which processor will be in the thing and how fast all the applications vendors (well all 4 or 5 of them anyway) will jump on the next bandwagon.
No thanks to all the buggy virus-targeted Intel hardware, and no thanks to an OS built for that hardware. I switched to Apple so I could get a Unix based OS on a non-Intel platform, and I'll switch away from Apple for the same reason. Hasta la vista Stevie!
PS: Astroturfers... start your engines.
Whats to stop windows viruses damaging the OS X install ... or even inserting malcious code into it?
Eventually, Apple was going to "release" a dual boot version (only - so initially preserving OS X.. read further). It means potential Switchers now have NO excuse not to try a Mac. I mean, if Vista is late and you need new software anyway... so continuing.. you can dual boot, but what we really want is "virtualisation" (yes i use "s", I am from the other side of the pond) so you can seemlessly drag between XP and OSX applications and run thing simultaneously. Eventually I would be a little frustrated if I had to reboot just to use my XP based application. Hopefully, this will encourage the switchers to try more Mac apps!!
Otherwise the main advantage is gaming.
Well, linux has had the "captive" driver, which uses the NTFS.SYS off the XP partition to be able to mount NTFS as rw, so why can't OSX do the same thing easily?
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
But what would be the advantage of running Linux vs. the BSD-based MacOS X?
1) Because you like free software.
2) You need to run many X applications (and want to see them at native speeds)
3) You want to run MySQL (or nmap, or many other OSS packages) with better performance.
My pics.
"Why a Unix user would buy a Mac desktop machine is beyond me though."
On the contrary, I think it makes good sense. OSX is POSIX. Dig out the termial from under the pretty GUI, install fink, bring some GNU apps and a Unix person will be right at home. More so than on a non POSIX, that's for sure. And when that person wants to get into multimedia type work or do their taxes, they have a platform for that too. Plus your OSX box will interoperate nicely with other Unix like systems.
This just made my life much easier.
Like most big orgs (I work at a university library), we are officially a windows shop. Mac (and even Linux) desktops are allowed in special circumstances, but officially frowned upon. So every time I want a new machine, I've had to either a) find an alternate funding source like grant money or b) do a lot of justifying my desire to have a Mac and reassuring management that I can really interoperate with the windows world. Being able to say that I can just boot into XP if something doesn't work in MacOSX makes this much, much easier.
And there are a whole lot of non-technical users who would love to use Macs, but couldn't justify them or satisfy their manager that they could work with windows (without any support, of course). Now they can also use the "I'll just boot into XP if there are any problems" line, too.
So I think this is going to be a great boon for Apple. Their hardware prices are very competitive with the systems that big enterprises buy from Dell and the like. This will give a large number of enterprise users the ability to switch. This could be the wedge that Apple has been needing to break into the Enterprise market. I was at O'Reilly's Etech conference last month, and was surprised by how many people had PowerBooks (80% of the laptops, I'd guess). So I think a lot of decision makers have already switched.
-Esme
"I can understand how someone might want to escape Windows for Linux, but I don't understand craving that Linux experience when you have a Mac."
Performance: Linux has significant performance advantages covered in more detail in another post. This isn't necessarily a raw speed issue, you might be trying to profile your code and want results from a system that's similar to where the code will run in production.
Software availability: This doesn't mean Macs have less software (as they have stuff Linux doesn't as well), only that they have different software. There are plenty of things that are only available or better available on Linux. The big example is Java, the Apple version on OS X isn't 100% compatible with the official version (has some extra bugs and stuff), and the Apple implementation typically releases new versions late and only for updated OS versions.
Compatibility: MacOS isn't binary compatible or source compatible with Linux. If you're doing development for Linux, you usually need Linux. Even though it's possible to port software between the two, there's different platform-specific APIs (eg kqueue vs epoll) that make it impossible to move development entirely to the other platform.
Features: Linux and Linux specific software has powerful features that MacOS doesn't. One is LVMs, which allow dynamic resizing and snapshots for filesystems. Apparently commercial virtualization software will be available in the future for MacOS, but at the moment there's nothing to match Xen or VMWare.
None of this means Linux is "better", only that it's useful for different things. If you do the things where Linux is better suited, but want to retain the ability to do things for which MacOS is better suited, then that's a very compelling reason to dual-boot.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Sorry, but that's not correct. If the installer doesn't find an installed OS to upgrade it'll ask you for the install media of a 'qualifying product'. You can clean install Windows with an upgrade CD if you also have the install media for a product that can be upgraded. For Windows XP that would be a Windows 98 or later install CD.
But - thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
Frontrow runs on at least three Intel based models (iMac, mini and MacBook)!
And the discontinued flat-panel PowerPC iMac also runs it.
Isn't this a disincentive to make Mac-native software? Why develop for a tiny fraction of the market when you can develop for the other 95% and wait for the remaining holdouts to install Windows on their Macs?
I know many, many regular computer users (not the Slashdot demographic, but regular folks) who would love to be rid of Redmond if they could. However, many of them feel that the transition would simply be too painful. This makes the transition much, much easier for those afraid to take the leap into unfamiliar terrain. The hardware is excellent, OS X sounds spiffy, and the machine boots natively into XP just in case you need to use a particular app, or in case OS X simply scares you.
My take on it is that when people have the chance to run OS X and Windows on the same machine, they may initially use some Windows apps they are familiar with, but the virtues of OS X will win them over. Eventually they'll find existing OS X software that does what their old Windows software did, but better. I find that in direct comparison, generally OS X apps simply function better than Windows counterparts.
Over time, switchers will stop buying as much Windows software, and they'll stop running XP except for occasionally. Once Windows-only vendors start realizing that their marketshare is being eaten up by Mac software developers, they'll move more vigorously into the OS X market in order to compete.
This is all obviously conjecture, but I think Apple is making a smart move here. They're confident enough that most customers, when given the opportunity, will choose OS X over XP. I think Apple is right about that.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Rather than worrying about Mac Ports, Windows Vista compatibility, and impending Apple/MS Doom, the focus should be in this:
What are Dell, HP, Lenovo going to do now????
Provided that this is the start of a STABLE windows load on Mac platforms. We'll see a lot of corporations using iBooks/MacBooks/Mac Minis for their solutions.
I think this makes Apple a viable platform for the enterprise. And maybe, who knows... a migration point to OS X, now that the investment got smaller.
2006 Sales of Microsoft Virtual PC rapidly approach zero.
Absolutely. Once Apple starts shipping with processors containing VT they should go ahead and include the Xen hypervisor. That way I don't have to pay a VMware tax. Don't get me wrong, I love VMware, but why pay and use a 3rd party product when it can be integrated in to MacOS.
i, for one, welcome our new windows overlords.
-steve jobs
Also, I've just read that very passage on the site. I'll quote it for those that don't want to RTFA:
"Why can't an upgrade version of Windows XP or a full version of Windows XP that does not include Service Pack 2 (SP2) be used for installation?
"You would be required to insert your original Windows CD during installation, however there is no way to eject the first disc until after Windows installation is complete and the drivers from the Macintosh Driver CD created by Boot Camp Assistant Beta are installed."
Now I've done that, would anyone like to speculate how the merry heck I'm supposed to eject the first disc after Windows installation in order to insert the Macintosh Driver CD that contains the driver necessary to eject the disc? That makes precisely no sense to me, unless we're expected to have two drives in order to run the install.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
I think it has more to do with being counter culture than anything else.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
I'm leaning towards sometime soon.
Linux is in no way shape or form a threat to Apple because Linux represents the opposite of everything Apple is about. Apple is about "ease of use". Linux is about "Make it hard, Make it free too but goddamn it make sure its hard to use or I won't feel smart!"
I don't see much of a cross over between the two userbases.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Apple doesn't want to make it too easy for you to run Windows. They want to keep people booted into OS X as much as possible; they want to make running Windows even more of a nuisance than it already is, so that after a few weeks, you find that you really can do without those last couple of Windows apps you were relying on.
And they're certainly not going to support virtualization. All the rumor sites claiming otherwise are full of it. Shitty-looking, lousy-UI-having Windows apps running as equal citizens on an OS X desktop? Over Steve Jobs' dead body. Not only would it completely degrade the Mac experience, it would jeopardize OS X's developer support. By keeping the environments strictly segregated, Apple helps ensure that Mac users continue to demand native Mac versions of all their apps.
> Also, just heard a rumor that XCode is going to be able to create winders binaries.
Yeah, I heard that rumor of the yellow-box's revival as well. I haven't yet digested the implications fully.
> Why buy a Mac for $3k to run winders when they can buy a dull for a lot less.
Now, let's be fair. You know perfectly well you can buy a decent new Intel Mac with the latest OS, lots of free software, a warranty and support for only $600. No, it's not ideal for everyone, but it's a very reasonable low-end solution.
> To run Mac apps? Why should a developer write for Mac OS X when Macs can run winders now?
Well, if you can write one program in Xcode and it runs automagically under both windoze and OS X (given YB compatability), you've added support for a popular and growing platform at little additional cost. That assumes you've moved your windows development environment over to Xcode, which is a pretty huge (and presently inaccurate) assumption. However, Apple has mindshare and really pretty apps, and from what I hear, Xcode is pretty slick. It might very well be worth the while of small-to-midsized developers to jump over if it becomes available.
Here's another consideration. There are A LOT of potential switchers who currently must also keep windows around for one or two pieces of legacy SW, or for driver flashing, or for occasional compatability with clients/collegues/etc., or for GAMING, or for whatever. Now they can consolidate to one computer and simplify their lives. Significantly, only Apple sells such a computer.
> I see this as a dangerous gamble. The rewards could be great, but it could further marginalize Apple.
A gamble, yes, but I'm pretty sure this has been Apple's mid-term strategy for quite a while. People with much better business sense than you and I have surely been considering all the implications for longer than we have.
This is a much different situation than IBM had with OS/2. People frequently don't like windows as much as they like OS X (once they've used both). There are many very good apps (some included free) for OS X, and it can also run almost any of the now-ubiquitous FOSS that's available for Unix/BSD/Linux. OS X has an arguably better user experience than windows, and it's "teh pretty". As mentioned above, Apple provides a very good free cross-platform (soon to include YB?) development environment. The HW that Apple sells is comparatively high quality and reasonably priced for what is included. Also, OS X tends to feel as fast or faster than windows on the same (currently shipping) HW. None of this was true for IBM at the time.
> Besides, I wonder what m$ thinks of this. They may like it as it opens up a new client base. Or not.
If they're smart, I suspect they are wetting themselves right about now. Although this is potentially good for them in the short term, it is another clear signal that Apple is engaging in a stealth campaign to take market share from windows. Once people get used to the idea that something should Just Work(TM), they tend to quickly tire of substandard products. With a big enough market penetration for OS X PLUS Unix/BSD/Linux (could be anywhere from 10-25%), microsoft effectively loses its desktop monopoly, and has to compete ON QUALITY. This is something they are both organizationally and technologically ill-equipped to do. If they manage to do so anyway, everybody wins.
The future looks very promising indeed if you look at the situation through that lense.
On the other hand, Apple appears to be betting that people like OS X more than Windows, and that by doing this they can get more people to buy Macs, increase their market share, and maybe even turn the tables on the application porting equation.
Apple is betting that most users, when running both OSes on the same machine, will find OS X a better overall experience. They'll also be attracted to the Mac apps. They'll enjoy the fact that OS X doesn't get burdenened as much with malware or security problems as XP.
They'll also be running on Mac hardware. The more fence-sitters who buy Apple hardware, the bigger the installed user base. As Intel Mac users demonstrate their preference for OS X and Mac apps, previously Windows-only software developers will have to pay attention.
When people see how much better OS X really is, they'll jump on board with both feet and will leave XP behind. Boot Camp is just a way to ease that transition. I predict a year from now we'll have unequivocal proof that this move made a huge positive impact on the OS X platform.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Yeah, looks like Apple is releasing a worm which allows the Microsoft virus to infect their computers, to me.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
For the first time ever Apple is in the wintel pc market. If they get just the tiniest fraction of that market, it means a massive increase in sales for them. Huge profit boost.
It won't be completely wall-street-official until the next macos release I guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if the amount of macs running mostly windows soon outnumbers the ones running mainly macOS. Look at itunes/ipod sales before and after they became available for Windows.
No, there's far more BSD code in OSX than a typical linux distro. Large portions of the OSX kernel, and almost the entire unix userland are BSD. Linux only uses a few random BSD bits and pieces.
I guess an official one from Apple would give some people a more warm fuzzy feeling....but, yaboot works just fine.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
My coworkers and I think this is great news, and the excuse we need to finally buy Macs when we upgrade our computers. I need to use Windows because I'm a programmer, and most of the work I do is often Windows based. I also play a lot of games which just aren't available on Mac. If I have a dual-boot system I can start using it as a Mac all the time, and only boot into Windows for games and the work that needs it.
Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
Perhaps I should have said, 'refuses to run on other Macs that are otherwise quite capable of running it.' That it runs on the PPC iMac had slipped my mind, but of course that's why a PPC version exists (and why it should run on my G5, but doesn't). I was also lumping most of the Mactels together, although you're correct there are multiple models that it runs on (the MacBook and the Mini).
I can't think of any other software though (besides maybe the OS updaters / Software Restore CDs) that flat-out refuse to run on machines, for purely non-technical reasons. Although maybe the entire Mac OS is in this category now as well?
At any rate, it's a new direction for Apple; it used to be pretty much guaranteed that if it would run on a low-spec Mac, it would run on a higher-spec Mac. You didn't have special software that was only for "home theater" Macs that wouldn't run on a "workstation" Mac, in other words.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
One of the first worries that came to my mind was the possibility of a Windows virus messing with OSX files, but that's where the different file systems provides a nice buffer. Since Windows can't read or write HFS+, any virus wrecking havoc on Windows won't be able to touch the OSX partition.
Apple add a feature that lots of people asked for, make it really easy to do, give it away for free and still people complain.
In the meantime, I'll enjoy my full version of Ubuntu, along with my Legal version of Windows.
Intel has even said ALL of their core duo chips support VT. Just because apple hasn't done anything with it yet, doesn't mean its not there.
Waitaminit, I thought being a Mac fanboi was counterculture! So booting to Linux must be countercounterculture!
/* ditches black (mock)turtleneck
Honey, where's my tie-dye shirt? And my birkenstocks? My stash? I mean, my cash!?
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Algerath
Wh ybuy a mac to install linux on it? Wouldn't a regualr pc be cheaper for that ?
In this day and age of Xen, VMware, Microsoft Virtual PC, CoLinux, etc., how can anyone get excited about a dual-boot system?
I mean, if I want both operating sytems, I want them both running at the same time. Otherwise, why bother?
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
I'm done.
I'm absolutely going to buy a mac. No question at all.
Perl, n. A language spoken by Eskimos.
running windows on mac is not considered as porn anymore.
For the sake of argument. . .
I have a Pismo. upgraded with a 900 MHz G3 and a 40 gig drive, which dual boots 10.4.6 and Ubuntu Breezy running Gnome. I actually find 10.4.6 to be a little quicker than Ubuntu in some areas (web browsing) and much faster in other areas (Ubuntu's Samba is borked, which limits it to 10BaseT for transfers, while transferring between two OS X systems us much faster). Now, I am by no means a Linux expert, so there may be optimizations of which I am not aware which could increase Ubuntu's performance. However, for stock, off-the-CD installs, I find OS X to be as fast or faster.
Beyond this, there are other issues. When Ubuntu installed, it didn't support direct rendering to the Pismo's graphics card. I had to google around and find out how to enable this, as well as double buffering and Xft. Last night I had to spend half an hour in the Terminal to get DeerPark to work on the machine. I am finding other problems, too: I have yet to find a way to monitor CPU temp in an application like conky, because there doesn't seem to be support for the Key West bus yet. Etc.
My point here is not to bash Linux, because I am enjoying the learning. But to enter into the argument, But what would be the advantage of running Linux vs. the BSD-based MacOS X. . . one answer is that OS X works out of the box in ways Ubuntu doesn't. This obviously isn't a concern of yours, but I think it's what matter to most computer users, who are somewhere between partially and completely clueless. My brother, who gets along in OS X, would be lost in Linux. So, while someone with your needs obviously gains little from running OS X, I think the average computer user gains a lot from OS X.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
Included Amenities
For your convenience, Boot Camp burns a CD with all the Mac-specific drivers for Windows:
* Graphics
* Networking
* Audio
* AirPort wireless
* Bluetooth
* The Eject key (on Apple keyboards)
* Brightness control for built-in displays
CD Eject Works
I can hear it now. Software vendors just love to support only the "one true operating system". I think the main thing keeping people porting software at all to MacOS was that it was very hard to tell users that they spent megabucks on a fancy system and it won't run their software. They can't just tell them to trash their Mac and get a PC so if money permits you port it Mac.
Well, now vendors are just going to tell these people "Please install Windows" and they won't feel guilty about it. After all the users don't have to throw anything away and are actually ADDING something to their system. And if they could afford that expensive Mac then they surly can afford a copy of Microsoft Windows. And with Apple fully supporting this now there is no excuse to defend against having to install Windows.
I hear all the folks that think this is cool because now they can run all of their Windows only games - but they should have been demanding that companies port to MacOS X. Now they will likely never see another game for MacOS X again now that they can be expected to "Just install Windows".
And I don't even want to think how this will affect the Web now that Macs can run that old obsolete piece of trash IE browser that so many moron web designers seem to expect people to have. "You want to browse our site using a Mac? Please install Windows and use IE 6!"
This is the coup of the century. Mac market share could easily double or triple because of this - I know lots of Windroids who are now saying - the time is now, I'm switching. I feel Jobs has planned this master stroke for years and it's like a Pearl Harbor style attack on MSFT dominance, who have nothing to defend themselves with. Although we know the VMWare approach is the most desirable the general public don't know this and will be very attracted by a machine that plays both VHS and Beta. For instance my parents next machine will be an iMac - they're losing nothing but gaining something which they will begin to like and use. Eventually the Win install will bog down and become infested whilst the OSX side will remain good. Before long they've become true switchers with virtually no pain. They'll even see that Win has poor graphics and text rendering when it's all on the same screen.
I never really bought Steve's power consumption argument as being the whole story - it's true of course - but didn't really warrant the speed that Apple moved the Intel chips thru the product lineup. They are about to capitalize on the delay of Looooooonghorn and make 2006 a great year for Apple. I expect the stocks might go to $100 soon enough.
Sorry for being so enthusiastic -- I know people may argue some of my points -- but this is a major major advance for Apple. Hooray.
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
Can't you just put the update version in an other optical drive?
It worked for me on Kubuntu this week - maybe I'm special?
which is totally what she said
Another little jab in the side of MS. From the official website:
"Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it'll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world."
Hahaha. Wicked.
I doubt we're going to see Linux support form Apple any time soon--they are currently in the denial phase
Apple *is* the largest desktop Unix vendor, they are not in denial, they are merely not bothering to support #2. That's a normal thing for #1 to do. The vast majority of open source software is not Linux specific, it builds for manny Unix environment including Mac OS X.
I would never consider one before, because I could ONLY use OSX.
I want to use OSX, almost desperately, but there are key applications that haven't been ported "YET".
I will now buy a Mac OSX, use it in all its glory, and dump into XP when I need a few critical applications, then quick boot back into OSX!
All I can say is Wooo-f*ckin-hoo! I'm a happy man.
Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
At Macworld in January, MS committed to building a Mac version of Office for another five years. Was this information known then? Will it change anything? Remains to be seen, but the MacBU is profitable and as long as that's the case, there doesn't seem to be any reason (other than spite) to kill Office on the Mac.
so, i guess, you have seen those mac conference keynotes before, have you?
I have been looking forward to this for a long time.
For the love of heaven please, I am begging for people to stop posting 'why would anyone want to do this' or rehash about how crappy Microsoft Windows XP is. Those should be automatically modified as redundant. Also, I couldn't care any less about Apple's strategy or how this is good or bad for Apple or for microsoft.
The only think I am not excited about is paying $299 for Windows XP Pro Retail. But I shan't pirate a copy as I believe that not a morally correct thing to do.
To run Windows properly a right touch pad button is needed, actually all of the Macs need a standard second mouse button.
That might be it, but I don't think anyone buying a Macintosh is interested in "Free" anything. The hardware, software both come from a very proprietary history.
If you want Freedom, stick with more open architectures. If you don't care as much (like me), then buy a mac, a Sun box, anything from Silicon Graphics, etc...
Just when you thought that your Mac life was too stable and incident free, Microsoft comes to the rescue with colourful new variations to your workflow.
Wow, you fuss over making a point about international spelling, then confuse 'seem' with 'seam?' Go sow colourful humourous unintentional disinformation in a different neighbourhood, speling is bad enuf around here.
This sounds great, but I'm far more interested in verification of which games work in this environment from those who have tried it. At the moment, I'm interested in Oblivion and Call of Duty 2. Anyone installed and played these under Boot Camp? How's it look and how fast?
Now we need to finger out a way to get our Linux on with these systems in a Boot Camp scenario...
First - the Boot Loader / OS Loader
If I recall correctly, Apples BootX boot loader (both PPC/i386 Darwin) supported reading kernels from an ext2 filesystem. I'm just not sure if it actually had the code necessary to boot the Linux kernel. This would be a nice perk for Apples existing EFI BootX loader - if it doesn't already exist...
Second - Filesystems
The FAT32 format should be out of the question for any Windows installation due to potential filesystem inconsisitencies that could render Windows unbootable. Yeck. NTFS is read-only from Mac OS X. Windows has no (native and/or free) HFS+ support. What is the best option for an OS-independent shared filesystem?
Ext3 with Linux! Not only can you then boot our favorite free operating system, but you can also use that same filesystem to store your shared data (from an OS standpoint). The best part is you wont have any limitations like 4.0GB file sizes or read-only support.
There are existing projects for Ext2 on both platforms, as seen here:
http://ext2fsd.sourceforge.net/ - Windows
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsx/ - Mac OS X
I'm not sure if they support Ext3's journaling capabilities, but that would be a very nicely added bonus. Permissions could be a tricky thing if needed.
With some developer support both of these projects could greatly benefit those of us wishing to make use of dual booting, either with Boot Camp or the XOM OnMac solution (recently open sourced under their own license).
I just want to say this is totally sweet. This finally means that if I want to play video games, I don't need to buy an entirely separate computer. I can't wait to play oblivion on a mac book pro.
This will certainly mean of high end pc games being ported to the mac... but that's fine with me. The ports are almost always late and deficient anyway. Besides, there are still some mac native game developers like ambrosia that should still keep at it to some degree.
Suddenly, Ballmer got that twinkle in his eye. For no reason whatsoever, he leapt out of his seat and hurled the chair at Steve. The surprise only shook Jobs for a fraction of a moment as he grabbed a small blue box out of his pocket and clicked a button. His Reality Distortion Field Generator went into full effect, bathing him in a glow of white light. In defiance of the laws of physics and indeed any laws pertaining to the natural universe, the chair was deflected harmlessly and fell to the ground. Rising slowly, Jobs slipped the RDF machine into the pocket of his blue jeans, brushed off his black turtleneck sweater, took a swig from the bottle of water on the desk before sitting back down again to continue the meeting.
Join Tor today!
But, you forget. Apple developes most of the really cool software, too! Final Cut Pro, Logic, Shake, iLife, etc. Pretty soon they may reveal a Photoshop killer. Remember how Final Cut Pro knocked the Hell out of Adobe Premier and pretty much all the truly hi-end stuff as well? I'm sure they can do the same with Photocrap. Shoot, if the put some serious muscle behind iWeb, they may even have an answer to Dreamweaver. They're probably dreaming up a serious contender to MS Office as well.
DIY, if necessary! That's what I like about Apple.
Karma Schmarma
to mount the NTFS volume under OS X? Or will you have to use some other mechanism to share files between the two operating systems?
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
when even the posts are repeated.
Well, this move certainly plays to the high end, more tech saavy customers. So it's a good move on Apple's part that should increase their sales a bit. Playing to the higher end customers is usually a good thing since they have money and will probably remain loyal to a quality product, even if it cost a little more. This certainly makes a Mac buy more attractive to me. But for the mainstream, average computer user, this is almost a non-story except for the vague possibility that people may be more willing to try the Mac side because they can get Windows later if they don't like it. In the real world OS switching doesn't happen for most folks, so if Apple hooks a few this way, they may never run Windows at all.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Yeah, but they were expensive, nearly the price of a separate machine, and had a poor price-performance ratio as well as being older processors, plus all kinds of little bugs and gotchas. This is a much more elegant and bleeding edge setup, even as a bit of a hack, and I predict it will get used a whole lot.
Damn those pesky terrorists
You're an idiot. The viruses are not targeted at Intel hardware. They are targeted at Microsoft Windows software. Ever heard of a virus on Linux? No. It runs on Intel. What makes you think that OS X will be more prone to viruses no that it runs Intel?
And this would be different from a native Intel SoftWindows how?
Or they could have Mac OS IX. "No, we're not going back to OS 9, we're just getting more letters off UNIX." :)
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
This is end of Macintosh as we know it.
Well, all my licensed programs are from MAC software houses, I wouldn't care less even if "Leopard" turns out to be a freaking shareware shell running on Windows.
I "tried" to use Linux on home desktop, you know... With games,multimedia etc. I figured a bit later that dual boot is the worst thing ever happened to Linux.
Ask anyone for Linux support, they would reply "You know LILO settings?" or "Aren't you dual booting?"
OS 2 on other hand DIED because it was running Windows 3.1 BETTER than MS-DOS does.
All I say is, it was fun using a Mac for 3 years...
I know it will hit -1 but anyway, those "flamebait" (How dare he bitches about our cult leader!) posts are archived too...
The Machavellian aspect is this: a significant fraction of those dual-boot Macs will get their Windows partitions infected by some nasty malware or virus, thus FORCING USERS TO BOOT INTO LOVING AND SENSUOUS ARMS OF MAC OS X. And as we all know, once you go Mac, you DON'T GO BACK.
The only way to be sure you get a rootkit out of an installed OS (short of wiping and reinstalling) is to boot from something you trust, mount the infected OS as another drive, and clean it from your trusted platform. When your Windows partition gets hosed, the natural thing to do would be to boot OS X and run a scanner on the Windows install from there. Assuming a scanner gets ported to OS X, and it can read NTFS.
I could believe a lot of people who would dual-boot Windows as a last resort would also be paranoid enough about Windows malware to buy an OS X native scanner.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Wohooo! Now I can [officially] choose which dictator anew each morning to follow. Bill Steve Linus All in one convenient package. :)
For castles made of sand must eventually return to the sea.
Here's a reason a company should not just assume a customer should be expected to install windows on their mac to run their app. It adds $125 to the cost of their app!
The apple design gives this classic crash a classy look.
. jpg
http://www.eng.bu.edu/~anc/macosx_bluescreen/blue
I just installed Windoes XP Pro on a MacBook Pro 2.16 Ghz 2 GB RAM. Intallation finished without a hitch. Here are some benchmark with Cinebench. CINEBENCH 9.5 64-bit app. Tester : Processor : Core duo MHz : 2.16 Number of CPUs : 2 Operating System : Graphics Card : Resolution : Color Depth : Rendering (Single CPU): 287 CB-CPU Rendering (Multiple CPU): 571 CB-CPU Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.99 Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 311 CB-GFX Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1189 CB-GFX Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2025 CB-GFX OpenGL Speedup: 6.51
While this is a legitimate concern, Apple refused to bundle X11 or Developer tools with the OEM systems in the past for that same reason. After a little time, the threat of not porting X11 apps to OS X declined.
There are already Mac apps for the office, MS Office, Photoshop, Quark, etc. People aren't going to load Windows just for that. Maybe the gaming market will go for the Windows partition, but who knows.
They don't now. They just say they don't support Macs and they give you some shit about development costs. Look, if you're having that much trouble paying the bills writing software for 95% of the market, you may as well pack it up and go home if you're saying it costs to much to develop for a market that pirates less and pays more for software.
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
This is not as big a problem as you might think, but you need to plan ahead.
As I do with my dual-booting XP/Linux boxes, make an NTFS partition for Windows XP to boot from, AND make a FAT32 partition for your data. Put your mailstore (You are using a mail client available on multiple OSes, aren't you? Like Thunderbird? Or Opera?) Bookmarks, and My Documents folder on the FAT32 partition, along with any other files you may want complete access to under both OSes.
Then you're good to go.
The day my new dell is supposed to arrive, they announce this. Oh well, i don't think I could have gotten the money together for a Macbook anyway.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
"So, while someone with your needs obviously gains little from running OS X, I think the average computer user gains a lot from OS X."
I totally agree. I still advise friends to try Apple computers (PLEASE! PLEASE! I'M so sick to death of helping them with their Windows machines!!)
But I no longer have quite the confidence in Apple (and maybe it is particularly in Steve) that I did for a while there.
The term "roadmap" gets used a lot as an explanation for why they suddenly switched to Intel. But everyone knows that Intel's roadmap has been a work of science fiction for several years. It is a marketing document, not a planning document. Like Microsoft did (and still does) for years, the idea is to scare off competition by saying "See what WE are going to be doing next year! You can't possibly keep up with us!" But AMD HAS kept up, and passed them in every area, while at the same time cutting costs.
What, in fact, Apple lacks is a road map of their own. Apple users don't have a clue what Apple might do next, which is why there are so many rumors and rumor sites about them. Just yesterday I read a long long article about why Apple hasn't penetrated the business market. The article had it all wrong in my opinion with which I can save you a lot of reading: Businesses like certainty. If they can't know everything about what you are planning they at least like to have a general idea, and with Apple that simply isn't the case.
The switch to Intel make zero sense, nada, zip, zilch, unless you start coming up (as some have) with really far-fetched notions such as Apple abandoning OS X or Hardware, or both. Besides, I think the cell based PowerPC processors that are the guts of the new Xbox and Playstation systems are fascinating. They have low power potential, multiprocessor potential, they are used in ruggedized military equipment, are the heart of some of the new supercomputers being built, and on and on. There is nothing bold and daring about the switch to Intel. Just the opposite, it is a capitulation to Windows: "We can never get the driver-writers on-board, so lets just look so much like Windows that Windows drivers will work for OS X". You can bet that's where this road is leading you, and the next step will be running Windows APs under OS X, and the next step after that is "Oh heck, Windows isn't that bad after all, lets just run Windows." Been there, done that with OS/2 and I ain't gonna go there again.
Read what Microsoft says about malware:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1945808,00.as p
Essentially: Be prepared to re-frmat and re-install as often as something sneaks through.
And I think that is what Apple users are in store for in the long run. But as long as OS X is around (I'm not making any bets) it certainly IS an easier OS to use than Windows or Linux, I'm just not so sure it will remain as stable and virus-free as it is today for every long.
With regard to your Ubuntu test, after running Debian on my iBook for a couple of years I decided to try a recent PPC version of Ubuntu as well. Since I was familiar with Debian (and Ubuntu is based on Debian) I figured I'd have no trouble with it at all. But I hated it. It WAS slow. I have no idea why. At one point I put a normal DVD in there to see if it would play it (it didn't) and the machine practically ground to a halt. It was doing disk I/O like crazy with no feedback to me about what it was doing. Long after I had removed the DVD and gone on to other things the machine was mostly useless, being preoccupied with something other than me. After only a few hours I concluded that Ubuntu wasn't doing anything for me that I didn't already have with my Debian install, so I went back to Debian where there seems to be much less mysterious behavior.
I DO expect Ubuntu to continue to improve though (I think the PPC version is relatively new) and end-user improvements made in
Can I plop my Windows XP hardrive in an external enclosure and boot from there?
How can something be both "ultra-modern" and "industry standard". It's the old "new and improved" quandry; you can't have both. To become an "industry standard", you have to be around a while.
The whole right sidebar on the official Apple page you linked to is not really the behaviour I would expect from a large company that has a "friendly" image. Wasn't there a discussion here on slashdot just yesterday regarding CEO and other workers posting as anon cowards on various sites to spread dirt about competitors? Some pointed out that many companies also openly did it, but I didn't expect Apple to be amoung them. Witness this little cherry:
Sure, Windows does have a piss-poor security history, but the language here is a little bit off.
Now, before everyone flies off the hilt talking about the end of OS X....
Consider: Apple makes Windows software, too.
1. iTunes
2. QuickTime
3. iPod utilities
Now they can do their development on Macintoshes, while running native XP.
Apple supports the Windows platform, and Microsoft supports the OS X platform. Both have developer staff which works on the other.
Why should interoperability surprise you that much, from a hardware perspective? Remember; Microsoft makes Virtual PC for the Mac, and bundles it with Windows licenses. Boot Camp is not a terribly new development, its just a new solution to an older problem.
New features are NEVER bad, as long as they are optional.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
"Ever heard of a virus on Linux?"
Why, yes I have Jocktard:
http://www.viruslibrary.com/virusinfo/Linux.htm
OS X get some of its virus-proof nature from the fact that is was Unix (BSD) based. But there have been malware attacks against all Unix systems as far as I know. The fact that OSX ran on PowerPC hardware and had very little in common with Windows as far as operating system calls made it almost impossible (no, make that impossible) to write a program (be it a virus or an application) that could run in both environments without a recompile (or as OS X now does by gluing two different compiled version together).
But it will be a lot easier now. The instruction set being the same, all the cleaver virus writers have to do is avoid OS calls, which, for really really clever viruses is a good thing anyway. You can bet that the virus writers in trying to do this will probably scramble a few people hard drives along the way. But maybe you don't know this: the intent of many malware programs is to remain permanently undetected (as in "rootkit" a term invented primarily for Unix systems, not Windows) and the opportunities for such people just got 5% (or whatever Apple's market share is) better.
Could you imagine the pandemonium if this announcement had been made last Sat, Apr 1 - their 30th Anniversay ?? It would have gone from, "WTF - good one, you had us going for a while there .." to "You mean the page isn't hacked ?" to "OMG - Ponies !!!" ;-) Oh, I would have loved for the timing of this to be just a little bit different from how they actually did it :)
I vote that Apple will do a GUI for Windows, but continue with OSX as well for the Unix enthusiasts. There is risk in any approach, so if they can afford to run 3 versions of apps (osx-ppc, osx-intel and windows-osxshell) then they have it all. Lots of testing of apps, but their shim on Windows lowers total testing effort by 80%. Sheer speculation. This dual-boot was a real surprise ... how long does that "don't support" line really hold up without a further transition down the road?
While looking at the Apple Boot Camppage, I must admit I was a little tickled to see the windows icon all greyed out and lifeless.
These are some of the things molecules do...... given 4 billion years -Carl Sagan
While your out "bying," please make sure to "by" a grammer checker. Those do come in handy.
Well if you make ubuntu work on this setup i am of to by a mac. Anybody knows?
"Care about people's opinions and you will be their prisoner." ~~Tao Te Ching~~
I've just got it all installed on a MBP. First impressions are pretty favourable - the installation was pretty painless.
The biggest problem I've got at the moment is the lack of right mouse button support on the touchpad - alt+LMB isn't doing it so I'm going to have to dig out a USB mouse. Also, just touching the pad seems to make the pointer drift...
Anyone know if this is gonna expire on me anytime soon? I know you're not supposed to use a beta seriously, but I fancy using this at work instead of my Tosh laptop.
Okay so that means the end of OS X within two years which brings a couple of benefits:
- Apple execs shouldn't be afraid to run out of cat names
- good for Linux since OS X was so far the only Unix embedded in a single, stable, nice GUI with drivers for all the gadgets in the market, it tended to divert Linux people who want their shell, their X11, their clean POSIX and their native Emacs/make.
Yes, I use a Mac (12" powerbook). I even do development on it. Its a great machine. Its just a machine though.
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a MacBook Pro w/2 Gigs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes...
Oh, wait. Shit, I booted into Windows...
Well I guess that Apple tries to fix their karma with this release... When someone hacked their system they now need to do full 180 degree turn and say: "we where all the time going to support this but dammn those guys hit the goal first..."
:)
What does consumer thinks about this? I think that this is great, now we can have officially Windows on Apple machines...
Thought, what makes the difference anymore between Macs and Dell or Sony or IBM or some other laptop? they all run on Intel/Amd hardware with WindowsXp...
I think that Apple was great because they had the PPC and it's still the point what makes me want to buy MacPowerBook instead of MacBookPro...
-Seeing the problem is ½ of solution-
....they would let OS/X be installed without having to use hacked versions on Intel PC's...Apple would have another good source of revenue.....OS/X as an option when you buy your PC?!? Buying an "Upgrade" copy to "upgrade" your XP machine?
Wow. Income. Good income. Competition. Good for everyone.
Nah...Apple had been to fvcking stupid for the past 30 years to do something brilliant like that. Just wait til the courts find itunes to be a monopoly and force them to open it up....
I was wondering if anyone has gotten the OS X running on a regular PC? With the Mac OS running on x86 all you would need is the right drivers and a boot loader, and you could potentially run OS X on any PC that is fast enough.
Apple could be planing it this way, could it mean that they intend to grab market share from M$. Imagine if you could by a Dell that will boot the Mac OS or Windows. Everyone knows that Windows Vista is going to be big and bloated, and it won't be available until the end of the year. Mac OS X68 is available now and could run on the current crop of PCs. Think about it would be dumb for Apple to not make this move, otherwise they have just turned themselves into a PC maker and will have to compete with dell for customers.
You'll still have to dual-boot if you want to play F.E.A.R. or whatever the flavor-of-the-month 3D game in windows is.
Virtualization is great, but so far nobody has figured out a good way to virtualize a GPU. Look carefully at VMware or Xen, and you'll notice that the "video card" inside the guest OS is a very barebones VESA card with minimal hardware accelleration features, and no hardware-accellerated GL/D3D at all.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
This is the beginning of Apple letting people run Windows software in OSX. Right now you will have to dual boot, but with 10.5 you will have hooks in OS X that let you run XP apps from your XP partition, maybe even Linux goodies too too.
What you say makes sense, until some day when the further abstraction of mach messaging allows a mach-kernel based OS to make a leap that would be a severe hack for a linux kernel. I admit I'm not sure what that would be, if there even is such a thing, but it might be something that allows mach to scale better somehow (perhaps distributed shared memory or something, I don't know). Anyway, abstraction usually buys you something unforeseen due to its flexibility, but you could argue that it hasn't paid off (and mach is what-- nearly 20 years old now?). But that's in comparison to the Linux phenomenon, which is quite extraordinary. An army of hackers can overcome the extra effort it takes to deal with less elegant solutions, I guess.
Quoted from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
There are plenty of very real moral and idealistic reasons to choose to use free software. Apple isn't going to help any section of humanity that can't significantly improve their bottom line. Supporting gpled software very well might.
To be honest, I think a lot of the public perception of windows' weaknesses and apple's strengths come more from a sense of fashion and trend than from a position of sound logic. My main beef with both of them is that they force me into an uncomfortable role as a user, and that the main objective of the organization behind their production is to increase shareholder value. One might choose apple over windows because apple is more cool. One might choose Linux over either because it was more GOOD.
The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. -Yeats, The Second Coming
While your out "bying," please make sure to "by" a grammer checker. Those do come in handy.
I'm hoping you were shooting for some sort of veiled irony that I'm missing, because otherwise, you're just an idiot.
If you're going to correct someone else's grammar, double check your own.
I'd be happy to get a Mac mini - Intel graphics, so no ATI driver hell, and it's easy to tote around. I'll wait until the mainstream Linux distributions boot out-of-the-box on EFI machines, though.
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
Uh OS X will not be running on Generic hardware for a long long time to come. Apple makes all its money selling Hardware not OS's So until they can sell A WHOLE LOT of OS's they can not afford to not sell the hardware Thus..... No Mac OS X for gerneric hardware.
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
Isn't this just grub?
Here, here. BIOS works just fine! Why muddy the waters with a more modern, extensible, secure and flexible firmware layer?
It's people like you who have helped us keep the super-useful parallel port on the back of our zero-configuration USB desktop printers. Why shouldn't someone with a 286 and Windows 3.1 miss out on the superlative experience of today's inkjets?
Even bigger news is that Appleinsider says that the required firmware updates [...] deliver EFI with BIOS support for the Intel Macs [...].
What, me worry?
... A lot more than it has ever done in a PC...
Now, mod me down freely. My karma can't get any worse...
Albert Einstein divorced his wife and married his first cousin.
Apple waits until the contest is over to announce this dual booting feature, and pretends like it's a big 30th anniversary supprise. After it's already been achieved through hundreds of hours of "hacking" via the contest to dual boot XP on Mactel. Apple slaps their logo on it and calls it something cute like Boot Camp and everybody eats it up. Wow.
Isn't Apple about due for it's next "transition" to ARM or something? Maybe at the next developers conference Apple will announce that they want everyone to recode to support x64 too. Ultra-mega fat binaries from Xcode now supporting PPC, PPC 64-bit, x86, x86-64.
Microsoft has consistently sacrificed technological relevance and actual innovation on the altar of backwards compatibility purely for the sake of maintaining a monopoly position.
Feel free to continue getting teabagged by Redmond if you like, but don't get sand in your gigantic asshole just because some of us think there are better ways to spend our money.
Nice try, though.
- learn to swim.
(Sorry if this is redundant; I just caught this and haven't read through all the comments.)
If you own your Mac, have a legal, licensed copy of OSX, and have a legal, licensed copy of Windows XP SP2, then what could possibly be illegal about installing Windows on your Mac anyway?
Has the DMCA gotten people so scared to use their own hardware as they see fit that it's just assumed to be illegal to do anything out of the ordinary?
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Besides the ability to run Windows XP, the other "thing" that boot camp creates is a whole new ball game for Apple's marketers to pitch Apple boxes (with OS X) in the corporate environment.
Seems to me Apple faced two major obstacles: one was that OS X required new hardware and wouldn't run existing enterprise or other Windows-specific apps used in the corporate environment, and the other was the 20 year-old mindset of corporate IT managers, many of whom to this day still describe the Mac OS platform as if it we were all still living in 1990.
Now Apple can offer machines to business that no other hardware manufacturer on earth can offer: the best of both worlds. For approximately $600 a seat (and possibly less in bulk) employees can use a space saving and quite powerful mini, run the corporation's installation of Windows-based software natively and have OS X waiting and ready to go for environments where it makes perfect sense to use it. For employees that only need web access, word, and excell, they can run OS X natively, have full interoperability with Windows clients, and be free of Windows security concerns. No anti-virus management and maintenance required. For employees who need more and use Windows-specific enterprise apps, the same mini can handle the job.
And that's just scratching the surface.
(Writing this on a G5, running YDL. Will be running either OSX and/or LINUX on this box for years to come, thankyouohsoverymuch)
Oh boy! Now I have have viruses and be PWNED just like your average Windows user! Yippee! Hooray for time wasted worrying about keeping my computer from huffing instead of doing real work! Let's waste time! Waste is fun! Pain is fun!
Humbug.
Also there's that nifty little dig on the Apple page:
"Word to the Wise
Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it'll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft Windows security fixes."
Oookaaaaay. Let's do that!
When I got my first computer, it was a Commodore 64, and my friends all had Atari 400/800s, Apple IIes, IBM PCs or, well, a life :-). Among my digitally-able friends, there was a constant religious battle about which system was better for this, that or the other thing. Furious arguments about sprites, colors, RAM allocation and more would break out over what were really quite similar machines.
I was 13 when I got the C64. Long before the clock struck 14, I had a policy of nodding and smiling whenever someone made a crack about the C64 sucking for whatever reason. Atari people said it had no games. Apple people said it did not have any serious productivity applications (!). IBM people said it wasn't IBM. Whatever.
When people don't have anything better to do, they treat meaningless debate as a religious front; I say rise above, or better yet, ignore.
Of course, it paid off long term for me; the C64 stayed in production long after the Ataris, Apple IIes and the original IBM PC. Being sold in second-and-third-world countries well into the 90's, it's one of the best-selling single models of computer of all time. In fact, now that they've got that C64-based joystick game console, the reign continues!!
Sigh... rise above...
The CB App. What's your 20?
Yes, it did. They threw out hundreds of man-years of work.
They put a lot of stuff on the back-burner, like WinFS. The media's reports of stuff being "thrown out" are exagerrated.
I guess you missed the news about the rollback to the Windows Server 2003 codebase.
That's a myth, frankly. Yes, a number of the more ambitious features were shelved, but many are still in there.
Dude, Vista isn't two months late, it's six years late. Two months is just the very latest in a very long list of slips.
This is a bizarre statement, as if you're holding Microsoft to statements made in 1997-1998, back when "Cairo" was the buzzword (which eventually became Windows 2000). Considering XP was released in October 2001, I don't think it's fair to claim Vista is 6 years late.
I attended the PDC in 2003, and they were aiming for Longhorn beta in 2004, final release in late '04 / early 2005. So I would say it's two years late.
This line of reasoning reminds me of the Team OS/2 folks (of which I was one) claiming how much of a failure "Chicago" was -- many man years wasted, tremendous quality problems, schedule slippage, etc. It was due for an early 1994 release and was pushed until August 25, 1995 as "Windows 95". And we all know how much of a "failure" it turned out to be.
-Stu
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Just tried it now. Apple Boot Camp officially boots Linux correctly. ACPI devices and the like are correctly detected, as is the harddrive. HFS+ works too.
Bea-U-tiful.
Gonna install SuSE, will post updates on my blog.
Bea-U-tiful. So Cool.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Right after the huge contest to get Windows on a Mac, Apple releases its own version!
I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
Being able to run OS X and Windows XP side by side (basically) on the same machine should be verrrrrrrrry educational! Yeeha!
Boot Camp is just another convenience for the Mac users.
Wow, that's one of the dumbest fucking comments I've seen on /. in some time.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
I don't know if the announcement was the cause of this but have you taken a look at Amazon's shop best sellers list?!?
... ...
1. Apple MacBook Pro
2. Apple MacBook Pro
3. Apple iMac 20
4. Apple iBook 12" (impressive still!!)
5. Apple iMac 17"
6. Toshiba Sattelite - FINALLY a non-Apple product!
7. Apple Mac Mini 1.66 Core Duo
8. Toshiba Satellite
9. Apple iBook 14" (also impressive it's still such a good seller)
10. Sony Vaio
20. PowerBook 12"
25. Mac Mini 1.5 Core Solo
The least I can say is: Impressive!
I could have jumped straight into Linux, and I eventually did (Debian on a second-hand G3 iMac), but I think the PowerBook was a good intermediate step.
After all, I am strangely colored.
Blah blah :-)
There is no mention of installing to a secondary drive.t ml
This would be the best case scenario in my opinion.
It would be great if the linux community develops a macintel version of "yaboot". http://penguinppc.org/bootloaders/yaboot/index.sh
Then we're off to the races.
Triple boot anyone?
Mac OS X / Linux / Windoze
DUH!
Apple had better watch this one. User boots windows, gets special Mac OS X targetted virus. Virus searches for OS X partition, and infects OS - keystroke logger, bot etc.
Just as unlikely to infect other Macs as today, but a real worry as the owner sees their bank account drained away.
Yes, and think Redmond should be secretly pleased as here is a tightly controlled hardware platform that Windows can run on without stability issues. As you state, this presupposes this is the start of a STABLE load.
Now they will likely never see another game for MacOS X again now that they can be expected to "Just install Windows". And I don't even want to think how this will affect the Web now that Macs can run that old obsolete piece of trash IE browser that so many moron web designers seem to expect people to have. "You want to browse our site using a Mac? Please install Windows and use IE 6!"
"You want me to pay $140 for a copy of Windows to run your program/visit your site? F*CK THAT!"
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
I believe this move by apple is one of the best ways to switch Windows users over to the OS X platform. Think about it this way, obviously Apple is not going to sell their Intel boxes with Windows installed, so the would-be Windows user that bought the Apple Intel Macintosh to only use Windows on it will be forced to try and perhaps ultimately like OS X better than any given Windows OS. This move will perhaps get more people to consider making the 'switch' than ever before. Sure, this won't be making OS X the dominant platform anytime soon, if ever, but I believe it is a shrewd and smart move by Apple. Move over Linux, it's time for Microsoft to start worrying about OS X.
After getting this machine set up and running (it was pretty straight forward - repartitioned my drive without messing up my OSX install just fine) I ran a few benchmarks to get a feel for how the machine performed.
First I ran Super-Pi and got a 30s flat result crunching the 1m computation. Pretty impressive actually - especially for what is esentially a laptop chip. I then ran 3dmark'05 and scored 3808 3dmarks. Again not bad considering it is also using a laptop video card (in this case a Radeon Mobility X1600 256mb).
Not the perfect machine for the hardcore gamer, but a really great all in one machine for most households. Good enough to play pretty much all of the current games, while also running OSX for a nicer overall experience while doing anything else.
Good job I say.
If you're a windows developer who's been wanting to port your software and grab the Mac market, but haven't been willing to buy two computers, isn't this the ultimate developer machine?
...is an os that understands the binary language of moisture vaporators!
If games were the only thing keeping me off of Mac, I'd go out and buy one today. Unfortunatly, like you, I really do need side-by-side execution of some nitche Windows applications.
No, I will not work for your startup
The switch to Intel make zero sense, nada, zip, zilch, unless you start coming up (as some have) with really far-fetched notions
Sure it does. The Core Duo crushes the G4 in the large majority of real-world tasks, and in the bigger picture Apple eliminates dependencies on CPU providers that don't really care about desktop CPUs.
Besides, I think the cell based PowerPC processors that are the guts of the new Xbox and Playstation systems are fascinating.
They are. They're also lousy for general purpose systems.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
"FORCING USERS TO BOOT INTO LOVING AND SENSUOUS ARMS OF MAC OS X. And as we all know, once you go Mac, you DON'T GO BACK."
I know you were being funny, but comments like this turn me off of the Mac community. Just gives me unpleasant images of someone in a black turtleneck whacking off while they bring the dashboard up and down.
This retarded view that it's not just an operating system, it's some wonder of the modern world, a thing of true beauty in a wasteland of mediocrity. Whatever. I use OS X every day and it has it has it's warts just like any other OS. I wish it always "Just Worked" because it doesn't.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
[N]early all professionals who use Macs aren't going to stand for being told they have to boot into XP for day-to-day work.
That's right! Those professionals and designers, faced with the prospect of losing support and future development for all their software tools, wouldn't just sit there and take that! Instead they would, um... write all their own software? Um, "...would switch to using The Gimp for their entire workflow!" Hmm...that doesn't sound right either. Oh, wait:
"...would buy a Dell as their next computer and run the Windows versions!"
Yeah, that sounds about right!
I actually think what will happen when vendors like Adobe announce they're dropping Mac OS X development, is that they'll give a generous crossgrade discount to owners of the Mac versions, more than enough to pay for an XP Home (or Vista HomeOneOfEightWhateverEdition) license...the end users won't even face any extra expense.
People here just don't seem to face the facts: Once a vendor (Apple) loses faith in its own platform, no amount of consumer "demand" is going to bring it back. People can wish they had a (viable) alternative to Windows all they want--there still won't be one. That's why there are no Amigas or OS/2 machines being sold today. The platforms were abandoned or died, and no matter how much their respective fan[boy]s wanted to keep them around, they faded into obsolescence and obscurity.
Facts:
PS: Written on a PowerBook, I'm no MS fanboy myself. Hate Windows with a fiery passion.
Microsoft has consistently sacrificed technological relevance and actual innovation on the altar of backwards compatibility purely for the sake of maintaining a monopoly position.
Feel free to continue getting teabagged by Redmond if you like, but don't get sand in your gigantic asshole just because some of us think there are better ways to spend our money.
Nice try, though.
And you completely dodged the question: What is wrong with the BIOS? And no, the fact that 1980's computers also had a BIOS is not an answer. The BIOS on any of my computers doesn't in any way stop from doing what I want to do. In my eyes, getting rid of the BIOS is just screwing with things for the sake of it. Why fix something if it isn't broken?
Do they think Front Row will look like simple shareware in comparison to Media Center? There's a reason Front Row's remote has only six buttons: it doesn't do much compared to XP MCE. I'm not saying that XP is better than OS X, but for many home users, the Media Center interface is something that Apple hasn't come close to matching.
I hope my speculation is wrong and Apple soon adds XP MCE support to Boot Camp. I'm sure most home Boot Camp users would like the Media Center version of XP better than Home or Pro.
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
Many of us appreciate Mac OS for it's lack of cruft and bad stuff. Boot Camp just opens it up so Mr. Pointy Haired Boss, Lame School Administrator, Uncle Jon or the new boyfriend to bully in and install windows and use that (with all that comes with it) instead of a more than perfectly good OS.
I expect a few years down the line it will go into Apple's History as one of the top bad business moves on thier part right next to offering Mac Clones did for them in the 90s. (the Clones were good for us, but not for Apple's profits)
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
> ...the average user is going to realize...
The average user? REALIZE? The average user doesn't even KNOW what an operating system IS!! Not even slightly! All they know is, if there's no "Start" button, this must be some weird mac apple computer or something, and, the response: *cringe* jeez, don't you guys have any PCs?
And where the hell is the blue "e"? I guess Mac doesn't have the Internet does it. I mean, if it did, surely I'd be able to see the blue "e" somewhere...but there's no "e" anywhere!
And why isn't there a button to make this window with two icons in it COVER THE WHOLE DAMN SCREEN?!!?! WHERE IS THAT BUTTON?!! The one with a rectangle on it!
Yeeeeeah. I think you're suspecting way too much if you think average uers are going to realize ANYTHING.
n/t
Apple fanboys touting how great it is that they can finally run MS Windows and then getting modded insightful by other frutty fanboys. This site is full of nitwits.
For Adobe, at least, the reason they won't drop Apple is that Windows lacks ubiquitous colour matching. It's a pain in the ass to create images for prepress on a Windows machine. If you're starting with a photo, you can do it by the numbers, but if you're creating an image from scratch you need to be able to *see* how the composition's going to be affected by different colour levels.
Even if you're just creating web graphics, having a properly calibrated monitor puts you more or less in the middle of the pack, reducing the number of people who will, through badly calibrated systems, see something that looks like ass... unless you're in the porn biz.
Booting into Windows locks you into the Windows colour management system, so the whole point of running Adobe on Mac hardware is negated.
Mac developers do extremely well, because they cater to their market, and have less competition. People have been saying this for years about VirtualPC, but it never comes true. We keep seeing more and better Mac software.
... and then they built the supercollider.
People will always find something to complain about.
1. Someone finds a way to boot a totally new environment on a Mac, allowing people to run applications they couldn't otherwise. Although this is an amazing technical achievement, people complain that you have to dual-boot.
2. Someone finds a way to avoid dual-booting by getting that totally new environment at the same time as the Mac (e.g. virtualisation). People complain that they have to keep switching between the two, and it would be better to integrate the two environments, for example, having the windows from both environments sharing the same desktop.
3. Someone finds a way to integrate the two environments. People complain that the totally new environment isn't "Mac-like" enough, although by definition it can't be. Short of porting things to Mac OS X (defeating the purpose of this), it's an intractable problem.
With Windows XP, we're up to stage 1 - dual booting.
With X11, we're up to stage 3. Stage 1 was dual booting into a Linux environment; stage 2 was XDarwin; stage 3 is Apple's current X11 and window manager. but instead of basking in the glow that is thousands of cool free software apps, people complain that things like OpenOffice.org or Evolution or GAIM, running in X11, is terrible and un-Mac-like. (That's a generalisation; I'm not saying that you're complaining.)
All those complaints about Apple not providing a virtualisation solution, are just complaining that we're not yet at stage 2. Once Apple provides that, those people may be satisfied; but a whole different group of people will start complaining that we're not at stage 3. And once we get there, yet another group of people will complain that we are at stage 3.
Of course, this is all worthwhile; I'm not saying otherwise. In fact, I'm hugely grateful just to get stage 1. But no matter what you do, people will always find something to complain about. (Hmm, that's nowhere as insightful as I thought it was.)
Well, for anyone who actually cares I find these links interesting:
d ows_timeline/
What happened to Sun software on Intel:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=566
What the possible future might hold for the Apple - MS feud:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/05/apple_win
playing games is the best thing
What is wrong with the BIOS?
BIOS complete sucks for boot device management. It's "good enough" for most personal, standalone PCs with one hard drive (like iMacs for example), but for servers and workstation systems it blows. It also lacks remote managability and other corporate friendly features. And as Intel has pointed out, there never really was a BIOS spec for option ROMs, they just sorta worked through fate alone. Plus, it's 2006 and GRUB and Dell still can't agree on how to boot my SCSI/IDE machine. Fuckos.
Anyway, this update just added a BIOS to Macs, so it's a moot point. 100% PC AT Compability has been achieved.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
When it runs OS/2 Warp, THEN I'll be impressed...
The companies still want our money. So they should be told that if they want my money they have to give me the product that I want, not the product they want me to have.
Think Deeply.
I feel so....dirty.
I only had an SP1 XP disk. so I had to wrestle with it.
After a bunch of grunt work, gosh, it's Windows.
Gross.
True, that's what most of us do, my point though was that the interface is still less comfortable to use than a conventional X11 interface (to a Unix user).
This at least was the consensus after an (admittedly informal) polling of Unix Mac laptop users at various strictly Unix meetings.
OTOH it's true that having a system at hand for which some commercial software is available can come in as a plus (I know I wouldn't mind buying some useful Linux sofware). Although I don't know why taxes always comes up, are taxes *that* much harder to do in the US than anywhere else ??
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Well, apparently Apple wants us to all go out and buy the full version of Windows XP, which is far more expensive than the upgrade version. It seems to me that many of us who run Windows have an Upgrade version (mine goes back to NT 4.0). Is this just a beta issue, or will the actual release be limited to the Full Verson only? It's odd that Apple states a "bona fide" installation disc, to the exclusion of an upgrade CD, which has the same data as the full version on it. What would a multi-disc version be, anyways?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
I just finished a full shift at my part time job, tech at major electronics chain. I woke up today and heard about boot camp. I called them to see if they needed my today. So I went in and spent the morning installing boot camp and XP on a macbook demo. By the end of the day, I was teaching a class how to install and configure thier machines. We also sold 6 intel macs, 6 copies of XP full retail (home and pro), and some ram. Three of the sales were business people who paid $100 in service to have all the work done.
Even though this may be what you could consider an opening day rush, it can open a whole new world to apple. Thier hardware is expensive, but as a tech I can say the performance and reliability of thier machines are great; and thier warranty is the best in the industry. I've ordered hardware for applecare repairs at 6pm and had it delivered the next morning. There are a lot of people who let things like warranty, repair time and reliability determine what brand pc to buy.
Maybe. And maybe it'd be pretty good, too. But no one would buy it or use it. People want to use the tools they've learned and worked with for years. Nobody wants to start all over again with Apple Glamour Shot Pro (this is what apple would call its Photoshop 'replacement'). Faced with the choice of buying a cheaper computer and getting a big cross-grade discount on a great new version of Photoshop that everybody else is using, or paying full price for a v1.0 of Apple's newest pro app--that they'd have to completely relearn--on an Apple machine that cost a 20% premium already... I think the 'creatives' will choose Adobe over Apple.
> Apple's Pro apps like FCP and Aperture, which won't be ported to Windows
Well Final Cut, I agree, has some value because it's so widely used in the TV industry. But it's probably the only Apple app of value. Apple might spin the group off (see FileMaker, which started out as a Mac app, and is now a Windows program developed by wholly owned subsidiary FileMaker.) As for Aperture, it's barely a year old, and has no real following. It'll be discontinued along with the rest.
> the company is in the best position it has been for years
I agree with you there. It's important to make a distinction, though, between Apple Computer, Inc.*, and the Mac. Apple Computer doesn't have to keep making computers and OS to stay profitable and stay in business. Perhaps Apple feels it would be better off putting the Mac division engineers to work on other things instead of Macs. Sure the Mac division makes a little money, but not as much as the iPod division now. And the Mac division is showing very little growth, while the iPod division is growing every quarter. Apple owes it to the shareholders to discontinue the Mac and focus on an area where they actually stand a chance at winning--consumer electronics. iPods, today. Set-top boxes, tomorrow. Mobile phone, any day now. Apple has a promising future. The Mac, however, does not. This is not the final nail in the coffin, but it's a nail nonetheless.
Apple could consider spinning the Mac division off or selling control to a third party, though, instead of killing it off itself. They could extract a little more money out of it that way.
Slashdotters: Who would be the top 3 bidders for the Mac division? My guesses:
* Quit laughing. The "Computer" in Apple Computer can be like the "Telegraph" in AT&T. Purely vestigial.
If anything, Windows runtime should be a service on top of OSX (and maybe even BSD or Linux, if they're stable enough - API wise), not vice-versa. Structurally, Windows is a mess, but it has some good, mature APIs , and excellent developer tools (plus a huge library of software, obviously). Microsoft should build on their strengths and license Windows client, server, and developer runtimes for alternative operating systems, allowing them a slice of the pie no matter where the OS market share goes.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
What, and reboot every time I want to use their product? Fuck that, I'll go to the competition. I'll use this to flash EEPROMs, and that's about it - but I'm greatful it's there!
Well, I guess the time is here for many of you. /. have said "If they did a Mac that runs Windows I'd get one, but not before" at some point in their posts.
;)
We all know that about 80% of Windows users on
So I thought you might all like to club together & arrange a community bus to the local Apple store this weekend. No point clogging up the car park.
* Game Over * High Score: 264,846,927 -- Your Score: 14
I totally agree with you. People seem to be suggesting that this could reduce the incentive to develop Mac apps, but I think it could mean the opposite. They now have OS X right there, XCode and Cocoa right there, they might just be tempted to have a look at it... and what they'll find is that Cocoa is not just streets ahead of the competition, it's also fun! Not to mention really easy to learn and will build great apps with a very straightforward learning curve. Apple have just lowered the bar on entry to this development environment, not raised it - and that's a good thing for Mac apps.
Developers who are open minded enough to give Cocoa a try (both Mac traditional and Windows developers) will probably start to realise (as I have over the last 18 months) what a lot of time other methods force you to spend just keeping the language and tools happy instead of getting your interesting app coded. I find it hard to contemplate going back to any of the old ways now, since I know how much more productive I am in Cocoa. I think it's part of Apple's reasoning for doing this dual booting to attract new developers in this fashion.
VMware tax? You must not have gotten the memo. VMware has two totally free products: VMware Server (the next-generation version of GSX Server, now in beta) and VMware Player (which has been released for a while now). Those two products should have all the features the average user needs to create and run VMs.
Disclaimer: Yes, I do work for VMware.
I'm a Windows server engineer and use both Perl and VB. So I need XP. I am only allowed to use XP or NT clients at work so again, I need XP. (Yes folks, we still use NT4, both server and clients!)
I have a battered old laptop running XP and an old desktop running NT4. I use Dameware to remote control the NT4 box as a VMware client would run my laptop into the ground.
Recently I bought myself a spanking new imac mini. Wow! Two weeks later I went back to the Apple store and got myself a MacBookPro. I've ditched my home desktop and now use the MacBookPro for everything. The mini is used as a media center and is plugged into the network and the tv. (You can tell I'm a geek.)
Anyway, now that Apple has given me a guide and drivers to run XP on my MacBookPro I'm going to use it. My battered old laptop can go to silicon heaven and my employer will be happy that I'm running XP on the works network. AND I can still drop back into OSX when I go home.
I want to meet the guy who invented beer and see whats he's up to now.
Today, we celebrate the 30th glorious anniversary of the Information Confusion Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of impure ideology. Where each worker may be infested by the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Duplication of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with two wills, two resolves, two causes....
1984 is all about revisionism, after all...
What's the big deal!? 10 years ago Amiga could run MacOS and Windows on the fly while still multitasking...
ait until you can buy copies of OS X tiger that are not tied to the new macbook or iMacs & install that on your generic hardware
Not gonna happen, sorry. Wait as long as you want, OS X isn't coming out for generic PCs.
Just a rumour ...
http://www.macosxrumors.com/articles/2006/04/05/vm ware-being-ported-to-mac/
If you put a pile of crap and a pile of gold next to each other, which one are you going to choose? Get my point?
Stupid? I don't think so! Masterful marketing? Yep.
You could always give this a twirl: http://www.parallels.com/en/download/
XP is the host for a blight of malware. It is nearly impossible to keep the system clean without all sorts of things popping up and beeping at you incessantly. If there were a way to fix this, it would have happened already.
The development of Vista has endured numerous delays, and the removal of key features, and it still isn't ready. Some of the bad press is coming from within the company itself.
Basically, Windows is in a sorry state, and it doesn't look like things are getting any better.
Meanwhile, OS X is not only incredibly solid, but running on the same hardware as Windows where users can judge for themselves just what an operating system is supposed to be.
Boot camp is the ultimate statement of confidence Apple has in its operating system. Not only does it kicks XP's ass in every conceivable department, it'll kick Vista's ass as well.
I'm well aware of Player and Server. I have a former colleague who just started up at VMware. For developing VMware images (which I do) I use Workstation. This is my professional life. I don't see you guys losing out in the professional space. At home it is a different story. On my Mac I would prefer a total integrated approach in the OS, which is where Xen comes in to play in my book. In my professional life I'm vendor agnostic... Two different markets...
Why is it the tendency (especially in America) of the masses to sit and talk about companies not in terms of innovation and product quality, or not even in terms of net profit margins nearly as much as in terms of market share and revenue?
People are now on this discussion fussing over whether or not Apple's release of Boot Camp presents a significant threat Dell, the Wal-Mart of computer hardware. Who the hell cares?
I can understand consumer fascination with gross revenues even less than I understand executive obsession with it. Do you think that the CEO of Rolls Royce is losing sleep because they're selling thousands fewer units than Hyundai? More importantly, do Mercedes-Benz owners bat an eye when they see umpteen times as many Fords on the road?
I'll tell you from personal experience that when you own a Mercedes, you don't give a crap what the other guy is driving or why. You didn't buy it for the gas mileage, maintenance or pricetag, either... which are largely the angles on which the majority of cars are sold.
Likewise, Dell is a mammoth and, as someone else pointed out, has to sell zillions of computers just to make money on their wafer-thin margins... just like Wal-Mart.
But let me say something about a factor in the equation you might have overlooked: Ego. Why is it that it still eats at the asses of people like Bill Gates and Michael Dell that Steve Jobs and Apple are still at it?
It might be because Apple figured out how to run a lean and profitable ship, something that is difficult to do... It's much easier to flood the market with crap at low margins, high cost and sell shitloads just by sheer media saturation... just ask any of the major motion picture studios. That's almost all they do now.
A $15 million movie can't afford a Harrison Ford or humongous marketing campaigns, so it damned well better have a great story.
I guarantee you that Mike Dell and Bill Gates are envious of Steve Jobs. Is it the $90 million Gulfstream V jet? Is it the EIGHT BILLION dollars in cash that puny little Apple has on reserves? Is it Jobs reputation as the second coming? Is it the fact that Apple has more pull in the entertainment industry than Dell, Gates and all other IT magnates combined?
In 1997, former Apple Fellow Guy Kawasaki predicted that by 2005, Microsoft would have an operating system on par with the 1997 iteration of Mac OS. He was absolutely right.
It's all of these kinds of things that fry the asses of CEO's who are in love with their own legends. Gates is so insecure that he recently wrote his own article about what he does at work (which just reads like a commercial for bland Microsoft productivity tools), and he signed the byline "Bill Gates, Chairman and Chief Software Architect"... still touting that made up moniker (if you want to see how hilariously bad a programmer Bill Gates was back when he actually used to write code, read this article) like a young college graduate who's heart is all atwitter after receiving his first batch of the cheapest business cards Kinko cranks out for the falsely inflating (read: meaningless) title of Account Executive.
By contrast, Apple has a brand recognition and appeal that far exceeds almost all other brands across all other industries. But this is not an empty, manufactured status akin to Lexus (which basically rebadged high end $50,000 Toyota Camrys and thus invented a brand). It's more akin to Mercedes-Benz branding strategy. Here's a company that has vehicles that span a price range from $25,000 (C230) to $1.25 million (CLK-GTR). Daimle
Daimler-Benz (now DaimlerChrysler) is the oldest car company in existence. Apple is the oldest personal computer manufacturer in existence. Both companies' brands are built on a long reputation for bringing numerous innovations to the market and have gradually established themselves a
my school is so going to love this as we have both pcs and macs but i know the support guys (n gals) have a hard time with both so now they can retire something like 500 pcs and imacx. this is good.
The Doby Show
Most of us remember when Rhapsody (Mac OS X) was in development, the infamous red box that allowed to run Windows Apps inside Rhapsody (just like Blue Box aka Classic ran under OS X)
My guess is that on 2006 on the WWDC Apple will anounce that they have ported X Code to create Universal binaries that run under Win 32. Benefit of this? Lure developers to write Apps with Xcode that benefit from running on any platform. Best of all, reduces development costs and time, and doesn't kill Mac OS X development, because it will be a Mac Application after all, and of course on Windows it will be an alternative to MS offerings to developers.
Benefits, better code (clenaer and less bloated, better security, ultra portable, and legacy free.
I think that the X11 and developer tools have always come bundled with systems, but they are not always installed on machines from the factory - usually one needs to run the installers either from the hard drive or the included optical media.
Yep -- no argument there. Trying to accomplish dual-boot using hardware instead of software was by far the more expensive method to use. But older processors? I don't know about that, really. I seem to recall you could get fairly "state of the art" CPUs on the 3rd. party cards sold by Orange and the like?
I'm still trying to figure out why my post was marked a "troll" though, really? I figured it was just a fact that many people either forgot about or maybe haven't been a Mac user long enough to remember. Personally, I'll be a bit surprised if Steve Jobs doesn't make some sort of mention of them during one of the future keynote speeches - when he tries to explain his change in direction to officially sanctioning running Microsoft's OS on his hardware.
Guess by the time I got one they weren't... but I'm more of a 'fleeting edge' kind of computer buyer anyway, so you're probably right.
Damn those pesky terrorists
Meant to reply to the parent of the post I replied to...
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
I think that this is a good idea, and may cause apple to gain some market share in computer sales, yet I fear it will hurt the OS. Does this force them to have XP in particular, or are other OSes going to work too?
AIM sn: TheOneLutz my blog: http://slypetogarth.blogspot.com/ (Just started this thing) If you don't know wh