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."
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!
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."
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.
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.
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?
This will change the face of Apple computers.
Yeah, it's the virtual ugly stick!
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
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.
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
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.
Also eyebrow-raising, Apple's take on the XP logo:
http://images.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/images/pa
Free, legal music for iTunes users.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
... 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
How's that for some great numbers ???
-- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
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.
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.
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
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!!
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
Exactly, and at their price-points, they are making out like bandits.
I wonder if what happened was that they saw a big boost in sales after the news broke of the "unofficial way" to run XP on Intel based Macs. Their strategy could have easily been to hold off on this until someone else proofed that there's value in it.
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....
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.
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.
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?!?
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
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.
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".
Additionally Apple have always made more money out of computers than ipods. Apple computer sales have grown from around 3.5M units in 2004 to between 4 and 5 M units in 2005. A significant gain which outpaced the industry (i.e market share gain.) Apple spend more time on their hardware and software for the apple computer than media development.
Also businesses look to grow, not shrink. No matter how well the iPod does, Apple will always make computers, that business unit would simply not be as big as the iPod business unit. It's not like they are limited in staff. It's like suggesting that the MS xbox is doing well.. so we'll stop making MS Office.
Finally, I bet that all of your bets are wrong.
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.
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.
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.
As one of those app writers, I will say that once you get over the learning curve of Obj-C/Cocoa -- you will not want to return to the land of ugliness that is associated with the older APIs.
Even with C#, I'm bothered that the Development System just writes a lot of template code for you, rather than having true separation of the visual elements from the code.
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
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.
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.
"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
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
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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
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.
"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
http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/linux/bootlinux.h tm
:)
Lets you point the NT bootloader at a Linux partition.
I suspect, however, that if Boot Camp uses a bog-standard BIOS compatibility module for EFI, Linux will just work, except for the ATI RADEON x1600 drivers, which don't exist yet.
I'll try it out soon
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
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...
Well, considering that EFI is now 6 years old, why shouldn't it be both ultra modern and industry standard?
Just because you haven't heard of it until now doesn't mean it isn't established. It's been running in Itanium and a handful of x86 systems for over 5 years now.
The only real issue is calling it an "industry standard". More like a "good idea made real", but Apple is known for hyperbole.
Besides regarding Windows, isn't it true that, "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?" I would call it due diligence, warning prospective Mac users installing Windows XP that they will be opening their Windows PC to a whole world of vulnerabilities virtually unheard of on a Mac.
"Warning, consumption of alcohol by pregnant women can contribute to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome."
Would you say this statement is off because it is critical of alcohol manufacturers? Apple is stating a known truth and issuing a fair warning. It may not be nice or friendly, but it is true and it is useful for those Mac users who have never had to deal with spyware, viruses, or malware before.
GPL Deconstructed
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
The clearest example that comes to mind is ipv6. Close to no one uses it, and yet it is unquestionably a standard, and could plausibly be described as "ultra-modern."
I think all they were trying to convey there was "really, this isn't just some shit we made up. This isn't another ADB or LocalTalk; this is a recognized standard that's also used by not-us people."
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.)
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)