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."
In my opinion, the existance of this tool only strengthens the rumour. If you're going to run a virtual Windows, you still need to have an actual installation of it lying around somewhere. Windows won't run from an HFS+ drive, it will need its own NTFS set-up somewhere - this tool will let you create such a set-up, ready to be dual-booted today and virtualised tomorrow.
Cheers,
Ian
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.
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
No, OS X is not going "bye bye". (And no, Dvorak wasn't "right".)
This is a move specifically calculated to appeal to Windows users, and to increase Mac OS X marketshare and usage (and thus Mac OS X software development), period.
This isn't about Apple "switching to Windows" or becoming yet another Windows PC manufacturer. In fact, it's the furthest thing from it.
* 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.
Also eyebrow-raising, Apple's take on the XP logo:
http://images.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/images/pa
Free, legal music for iTunes users.
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.
Because any smart business knows that the key to success is giving the customer what they want. In this case, Apple knows that a proportion of their customer base and potential customer base would like to be able to boot into Windows. Letting them do so easily has the potential to sell more boxes, full stop.
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.
People who like OS X will continue to buy Macs. People who like Windows *may* now buy a Mac, and learn about OS X
The only real potential downside I see is that app writers get one more excuse not to write Mac apps, but to be honest, I don't see a substantial shift in that from today; views are already well entrenched.
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?
No, actually it won't be going bye-bye. Mac OS X is central to many of Apple's markets, and those markets have no interest in Windows. And I'm not talking about "graphics" markets. I'm talking about academia (not "K-12"), research, scientific areas (particularly life and biosciences), and so on. Also, the Linux market isn't getting smaller, it's getting bigger. As is the market for a commercial UNIX.
Will OS X go away someday? Yep. As will Windows. But it won't be in 18-20 months, or even 5 years. Apple has a lot invested in Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server, and it will be around for a long, long, time. Apple's consumer media offerings are utterly separate from the OS realm, but Apple is looking to EXPAND Mac OS X adoption, not curtail it or eliminate it.
Nice troll, though...the whole "watch at the slowdown in the coming months" thing. There won't be any slowdown. Mac OS X marketshare will GROW in the coming months, as it has in the previous months and years to now. I love that people are still using a variant of the "Macs have no software" market over 22 years later.
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.
Cooorpoooraaaateee peeeneeetraaatiooon!
I hope this goes too. Now one can safely "sneak" Macs into workplace. And when people see that MacOSX is equally suitable for developing/running business software, i.e. when "Macs are for graphic designers" meme starts dying... That could be valuable. Especially since I guess MacOSX will run circles around Vista on same hardware regarding speed, capability and general well-builtness.
This isn't about Apple "switching to Windows" or becoming yet another Windows PC manufacturer. In fact, it's the furthest thing from it.
Exactly. It's all about dropping a barrier to entry, just like when Apple shipped X11 a couple of years ago.
This move will get Apple many more hardware sales by removing a bludgeon that IT departments routinely use to veto Mac purchases.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Quite the opposite. The ability to boot Windows makes Mac hardware more relevant, not less. They will go from selling 4 million boxes a year to selling 8 or 10 million. Apple is betting that most of those people will use OS X more and more, and Windows less and less. After all, the Intel Macs come chock full of very nice software (iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iWeb, etc) which still has no equal in the Windows world.
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.
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 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.
But the question then is - does Apple continue to pour money into OS X, or could Gates and Ballmer be ameanable to making the modifications needed to make Windows Vista the next Macintosh OS?
.NET going on it, so as not to outrage all the suckers who've bought into their half-assed Java knock-off to date. Then, they just need to run XP in a penalty box which they could call "windows classic", and ship it. For the first time in their history, they'll be able to offer a reliable, securable OS. (They could have done it with Cutler's Last VMS, but their managment fucked that up beyond all hope of repair.)
The better question is: having blown about ten billion dollars in direct costs (and maybe as much as fifty billion in opportunity costs) on the biggest failed development project in history, and having had to try to save face by hastily throwing together XP SP4 and pretending that it's actually Longhorn, despite having dropped all the features that were supposed to make it worth a six-year wait, does it make any sense for MS to do it all again, or should they buy a working OS from a vendor who can actually ship updates on a schedule?
Longwind was MS's answer to the Copland project, only it's been far, far worse. They've only got one viable alternative to a rerun of the disaster of the last six years, and that's to swallow their pride (which they never had in the first place), and cough up about five billion dollars to license OS X. That's a bargain, compared to letting their horiffically incompetent management screw the pooch again. They could hire InfoSys to get
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
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.
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."
Apple markets their products to real users, not ultra-geeks. Ultra geeks have already figured out how to boot into Linux. If you haven't, then you probably shouldn't be running Linux. Apple isn't looking to add support costs to some schmuck that doesn't under Linux.
What advantage to Mac users have by running Linux on their Mac? And is that advantage a real world, mom & dad advantage?
With Boot Camp, Apple is able to truly work as a replacement for your PC.
I'm still holding out for what I think is a much more elegant solution (running Windows Virtually) because I like staying in Mac OS X and visiting Windows only when I have to.
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 touched on some of this already, but I think it boils down to these three things:
A publicly traded company exists solely to make profits for shareholders.
However, I am skeptical this will win over current windows user. It appear as a waste to me to buy a Mac and run windows on it. You buy good hardware, but the average windows user is more price-conscious than quality-conscious. If one wanted to switch, I think he/she sould have done it even without this dual boot initiative.
"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.
1) A change of CPU does not change what market you are in, any more than a change in graphics card, memory type, or keyboard layout.
2) Apple is the only computer manufacturer with enough control over the OS to distinguish themselves in the market. Apple is currently experiencing tremendous growth in Mac shipments because of this.
4) Stock prices are a fun game, but not a strong indicator of corporate strategy. Apple still makes more revenue from Macs than iPods.
5) All Mac software development firms of any importance are migrating their products to Intel.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
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
Read the Apple Bootcamp page. Phrases like:
clearly indicate how Apple will be "bringing it" against Vista with Leopard. Apple is positioning Windows as the broken down, patched up, late again has-been with too many promises and too few benefits - but we'll do what Microsoft can't - get Windows running on new, nicer hardware in very little time. Apple makes Microsoft look like fools, especially by touting EFI and the fact that Windows STILL won't support it in Vista.
It's gonna be an awfully exciting year for Apple watchers.
> 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.
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.
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.
If a formerly Apple-hostile IT department did permit Mac purchases because the Mac could run Windows, it would also insist that the Mac only be used to run Windows - it would probably insist on having OS X removed entirely, in fact.
Once the machine's in the user's posession, it's a different story. Anyone running Linux at work, for example, is typically running it on a box that came with Windows.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
- built a drive repartitioner and tested the hell out of it. A bug here, bye bye personal documents and OS.
- added a bootloader keyboard hook and a system for specifying multiple bootloaders. (may have already existed?)
- compiled a complete set of XP drivers for the hardware
- writen an installer application to take you through the process.
That's quite a lot of work. This is definately a part of Apple's road map in my opinion, but even if I'm wrong, it shows Apple have the ability to adapt and that they aren't scared of just diving in at the deep end when the inevitable (dual boot) happened. Many companies would have languished, others would have sued. Apple said "nah, we can do better". Good job Apple!
The appeal of Linux to students and scientists I'll believe, because it's CHEAP for students, and scientists have very specific veritical market needs and can make Linux work for their uses.
Linux companies (except possibly Novell/SuSE in the past 6 months) do NOT market to desktop and home users. Ask an average desktop/home user if they know what Linux is -- 90% of the time, they've never heard the word. The other 10% have heard the word, but don't have a clue what it is.
Linux companies do not market to business users for anything other than servers. I know, because I'm an I.T. Director heading up the move of our company's entry-level desktops and laptops from Windows and Office to SuSE Linux 10 and OpenOffice. The migration is an uphill battle just from a technical point of view, and I've used Linux for about 12 years at work. No Linux company ever did any marketing to get me to make that decision.
What software runs natively in Linux that does not run natively in Mac OS X? And I'm talking about the average user, not techies. I run Windows XP, Mac OS X, and Linux everywhere, and I honestly have more mainstream software available to me in Mac OS X than I do in Linux. What isn't is not mainstream, runs in Windows, or runs in Mac OS X or Linux using the same OSS -- WINE. There is very, very little OSS that compiles and runs in Linux that I can't compile and run in Mac OS X with similar ease. Most OSS that I compile and run in Mac OS X and Linux already auto-configures for Mac OS X/Darwin automatically to ease the compile process.
I don't know of any non-server software that runs natively in Windows and Linux, but not OS X -- maybe you can list some?
On Linux dev support from Apple, how many people buy a UNIX-based Mac to run Linux??? Do you think it makes sense for Apple to support that very limited number of users?
The fact is that Intel Macs running Macs OS X UNIX and Windows XP in a dual boot setup really divides the *NIX community. Why? Because if you can dual boot Windows XP with your favorite *NIX OS, why would you triple boot Windows XP, Linux, and UNIX (unless, of course, you're a developer)?
Most people like me who use Mac OS X and Linux and appreciate both, will choose one or the other to dual boot with Windows XP. And guess which *NIX OS people like me who already own a Mac will choose? Hint: I won't run Linux on my Macs, and I have no desire to. And, I'm very sure that people who really want Linux (and aren't just using Linux like me because we have to dual-boot Windows for work) have no desire to use Mac OS X, and won't buy a Mac to dual-boot Windows XP and Linux.
To me, and I'm sure to Apple execs, this makes the Linux on Mac question very clear...
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
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?
If you've installed Windows on your Mac already (where a "Captive"-like solution would get the driver), it's probably safe to assume that you either have the license or have a pirated copy of Windows and don't care about the legality.
WINE is LGPL too, which should make this idea even more attractive...
I call it "fanboys in a slapfight" he said, while adjusting the frame slightly to the left.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
"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.
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.)
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.