Triple Boot on MacBooks Working

MikeTheMan writes "By now, everyone probably heard that Apple's recently-released Boot Camp software allows users to install Windows XP alongside OS X. But now, people at OnMac.net have discovered how to triple-boot OS X, Windows XP, and Linux. There are instructions on the Wiki for getting Gentoo running, but it is probably trivial to get other distros working as well."

Comments

... but does it run OS/2?

[Anonymous Coward]

(or whatever other OS might be fashinable, *BSD, ...)

Re:... but does it run OS/2?

[Agret]

Yes, it emulates the BIOS so you can install any x86 OS I would assume.

Re:... but does it run OS/2?

[Anonymous Coward]

*BSD, ...

Yes, Mac OS X does run on the Mac Books Pro.

Re:... but does it run OS/2?

[apoc.famine]

Well, if they actually managed to get Gentoo working on it, it should indeed be "trivial to get other distros working as well." Hell, if they just finished compiling Gentoo, OS/2 was probably still in development when they started....

Re:... but does it run OS/2?

[Shads]

Gentoo is for ricers!

j/k, It's a nice desktop o/s, tends to be very very up to date. I wouldn't run it on a server though, the maintainability is a nightmare... and I know-- I just left a job doing admin for about 15 gentoo machines.

Re:... but does it run OS/2?

[Bob_Geldof]

The Mac runs BSD out of the box, natively.

Re:... but does it run OS/2?

[Dan Ost]

The reason we run Gentoo at work is because it takes almost no effort to
maintain. So I gotta ask, what in the world are you doing that it's a full
time job to admin 15 gentoo boxes?

If you said 50 or 100, I'd understand, but 15?

Re:... but does it run OS/2?

[KingRobot]

...it takes almost no effort to maintain.... *sigh* back to work We noticed.

Re:... but does it run OS/2?

[Shads]

I've been admining linux since the mid-90s, I started with slackware, later went to redhat and then suse, debian, and gentoo. Of all of them I've worked most extensively on gentoo, but in the long run (3+ years) it is by and far the hardest to maintain with 99.999999% uptime due to the compilation time and how things occasionally break during world updates. Don't get me wrong, it's fast, it's clean, but it's a royal pain in the ass to keep upto date on mission critical servers. I'd recommend debian to any future places of employ who asked. *Shrug*.

Why boot linux here?

[arexu]

I'm a linux noob, but i'm not clear why you'd WANT to boot Linux in this case, other than maybe if you are a multi-OS admin.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[pdpTrojan]

Because OMG then u could be like "I am so free cuz i got teh linux on my computer... u all r micro$oft 'n apple slaves!!!"

Re:Why boot linux here?

[tomstdenis]

Well maybe you want to, and I know this may come as a shock, ..., have a friggin choice in the matter.

I know if I bought a 2500$ laptop I'd want to be able to run whatever software I want on it. While their hardware looks spiffy (though to be honest no more special than Dell) as a developer I'd have to gouge out my eyes after looking at finder for more than 10 minutes.

Tom

Re:Why boot linux here?

[peragrin]

some people just don't like OS X or Aqua. To each their own. I personally prefer it. It is well integrated. Finder kinda of sucks, but hey nothing's perfect. At least it's better than windows. and keeps KDE on it's toes. Now if i was running non mac hardware then it's Linux and KDE.

With Apple now shipping x86 computers people are starting to realize that yea Apple hardware really is higher than average PC quality. Apple x86 machines are jumping to the top of the list for performance vs price. Something that Apple Fanatics have been saying for years but no one really believed them.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[NickFitz]

I do a lot of development on a Mac (in Eclipse, XCode and SubEthaEdit) and I've never found it necessary to look at the Finder for 10 minutes.

Similarly, when developing on a Windows box, I spend very little time gazing upon Windows Explorer.

What exactly is your strategy for development? Browsing the file system does not a developer make.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[Anonymous Coward]

With Apple now shipping x86 computers people are starting to realize that yea Apple hardware really is higher than average PC quality.

Looking better and actually being better are two different things. Don't judge a book by its cover and all that. From my experience with my own Macs and people I know, they are in no way more realiable than regular PC hardware. In fact, I would say they are less realiable as I have had more broken Macs and known more people with broken macs than people with regular PC's.

People like you just gloss over it because it comes in a fancy package. It feels better even though it isn't. Shallow is what you are.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[ufoot]

There's one good reason, the same old reason which makes me run GNU/Linux on PPC hardware: Apple makes very good hardware. Not necessarly the most powerfull, but it's robust, good looking, period. So that's a good reason to buy Apple hardware. Note that it's a matter of taste, some might prefer many other laptops to my good old G4 12", but I just appreciate this hardware, to type mails and program, it fits perfectly. What I want is something solid and reliable that I can put in my bag and that I enjoy typing on.

Then why run GNU/Linux? Well, for me the answer is easy, besides its freedom, that's the system I know best, and whatever hardware I have I might be able to run it. I use a PPC the way I'd use an i386. Note that in the case of a recent Intel-based Mac, this is not relevant since it's the same processor than many other laptops. But then, why run a Linux kernel in the first place? Why use it at all? I guess the reasons that make it interesting to run a Linux kernel on hardware X are still accurate when one asks onself this question "why would I run a Linux kernel on my MacBookPro?".

Re:Why boot linux here?

[tomstdenis]

But that's exactly my point. A lot of the hype for MacOSX is how spiffy cool the desktop is.

I don't care about that.

Granted I've never used Xcode I just don't see the appeal of Macs. Specially now with the Intel move. I'll just end up using GNU tools anyways so I could save a pocket of money and still have a machine.

Viva gentoo!

Tom

Re:Why boot linux here?

[n8_f]

Finder kinda of sucks

Two words: Path Finder.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[popeguilty]

[Something that Apple Fanatics have been saying for years but no one really believed them.] Well, sure. Up until recently, there was no way to test the hardware and not account for OS differences- have you forgotten "Sure, our chips are half as fast, but our OS does more with it"?

Re:Why boot linux here?

[rhesuspieces00]

What post are you replying to? There is no thread called "Why boot linux here?" and your time stamp precedes any posts on that topic. Troll.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[NDPTAL85]

Apple's Developer tools are free and use GCC.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[peragrin]

Um I only bought my first Mac with in the last year. I had been switching myself out of windows hell and into Linux for years, so the switch wasn't all that hard. When my last to machines(a custom built athlon and a dell) both died I decided to stop wasting money trying to cobble to together random hardware and let the experts do it for me. As I said I tried Dell but the only thing they have going for them is price. frankly one dell machine my roommate is afraid to reboot(and hence patch) it. it only boots about 10 percent of the time. Others broke down after just a year, or came DOA.

If a package feels better physically then there is a good chance the rest of it isn't bad either. Apple spends more on quality packaging limiting damage to shipping. That doesn't mean there has never been a DOA or bad a Mac. But the percentage is a hell of a lot lower than Dell's. A fact that has been shown numerous times. it's not about making a perfect product it's about making the best one you can not just the cheapest like HP and Dell do.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[tomstdenis]

Correction, they're based on GNU tools but aren't standard.

In particular they broke libtool from the way it works on pretty much any BSD or Linux OS to some craptastic inhouse flavour.

Viva gentoo, viva la choice!

Tom

Re:Why boot linux here?

[tomstdenis]

Click the parent link you fucking slashdot newbie.

Tom

Re:Why boot linux here?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have no experience of developing on a Mac, why do you feel the need to comment on it?

Re:Why boot linux here?

[Anonymous Coward]

dickhead

Re:Why boot linux here?

[jcupitt65]

That's thanks to their object format, mach-o, which is rather odd if you come from elf. The standard libtool didn't support mach-o for ages (maybe it does now?) so apple provide their own patched version.

I still find mach-o the most annoying thing about mac os :-(

Re:Why boot linux here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anecdote on apple hardware: *today* I'm still using a 5+ years old iBook G3 466 MHz. Yep, it's one of those colored ones... :-) It's hard to believe, but that thing survived a 6 meter fall along a concrete wall. It hit on the concrete foot of the wall about 0.5 meters above the ground, from where it immediately bounced and finally landed on the lawn, and it didn't have any defects whatsoever, not even defect pixels or bad sectors or something...

And after having replaced my battery about one year ago, today I'm still having more than 4 hours of battery power under normal development usage (including WLAN and full background light).

And I'm using it as my *first* machine, not as a replacement.

Ah, right: I've been using linux on that box ever since I was able to install it -- because it's free (speech). Whatever you want, it's all there for you to use it *exactly* however you want! And because Mac OS X is too pretentious about hardware resources... After all, my computer is more that five years ago, and even at that time it wasn't exactly the fastest on the market...

(but it's an *original* ibook with a region free hacked dvd drive, ya just gotta wuv it :)

Re:Why boot linux here?

[Anonymous Coward]

actually you can run osx in tandem through mac on linux. kinda useful for both os'es to run together. throw up xp on vmware. you could even run certain apps through cedega if you wanted to. at least i know it's possible with gentoo, haven't tried it with another distro yet.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Flamebait for real. Where do you get the idea that a Dell laptop could look anywhere nice as an Apple one? Have you looked at a Mac laptop in the past 2 years?

Have you seen a design like that anywhere? I didn't think so.

And no, the hype surrounding OS X is not about the desktop, it's about the stability and the security. You can run whatever you want on it, but it makes no sense to run an OS that will slow down your workflow, like Windows or Linux. If you want to be pigheaded about it and not use OS X, it's your loss. Just remember, you're the one missing out.

Learn to think before you speak, and you may just make a point.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[quakeroatz]

At least it's better than windows
No it's not.

higher than average PC quality
No it's not. It's PC hardware with an Apple case. Repeat after me, it is PC hardware. Apple Intel Hardware=PC Intel Hardware, that's why you're booting Windows XP!

Apple x86 machines are jumping to the top of the list for performance vs price
So you're saying that your Apple Intel Duo is right up there with the Dell Intel Duo, with the exact same CPUs, I'd hope so. What is your point?

Something that Apple Fanatics have been saying for years but no one really believed them.
Until Apple swapped to Intel hardware and now those same Apple fanatics are still saying the same thing. Problem is, once again, Apple Intel Hardware=PC Intel Hardware.

It's like the T-shirt made in the same Chinese factory, one half sent to Walmart to sell at $7 the other half sent to Designer store tagged at $50. It's hilarious to see these Apple fanatics rave about the quality and workmanship of their $5 shirts.

Now, take Apples teet out of your mouth and mod me down!

Re:Why boot linux here?

[dave1212]

If you have no experience of developing on a Mac, why do you feel the need to comment on it?

I don't know if the gp has experience on Macs, but this has been a problem for many years, and I don't see it going away. People will make comments on things they know nothing about any chance they get, either to spread FUD, or simply because they like the sound of their own voice (or text equivalent). Hence entire companies will believe whatever their clueless IT dept tells them when it comes to Macs.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly because Linux is a FAR BETTER UNIX than Mac OS.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[hahiss]

I'm a linux noob, but i'm not clear why you'd WANT to boot Linux in this case, other than maybe if you are a multi-OS admin.

Well, a few reasons come to mind (since they would be mine):

1. You like Apple hardware but you do not use proprietary software.

2. You don't work the way OS X wants you to. For example, if you prefer using the mouse as little as possible or you just don't like the general design of the interface.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[i.of.the.storm]

Until they run Athlon 64s, they will never be at the top of the PC performance charts.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? So I guess that means that $9.95 keyboard from the bargain bin at BestBuy is just as good as a high end ergonomic keyboard?

After all, they're both "PC hardware".

And an eMachine is just as good as a top-of-the-line Alienware machine, right?

He said "higher than average PC quality".

Which they are.

Hint: look up the word "average" in the dictionary.

Idiot.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hardware" is more than just "processor."

Re:Why boot linux here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote:
At least it's better than windows
No it's not.

How could either of you know what my needs are and what's better for me? Windows is better for you? Great! Use it and good luck to you. Linux working fine for you? Wonderful, you go, girl! OSx meeting all your needs? Terrific.

But, puh-leeeez do not tell me what is better for me.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[maztuhblastah]

I won't mod you down, but I will try to clarify some things that come to mind when I read your comment.

higher than average PC quality
No it's not. It's PC hardware with an Apple case. Repeat after me, it is PC hardware. Apple Intel Hardware=PC Intel Hardware, that's why you're booting Windows XP!

Yes, yes... it's the same CPU: we know. The quote you provided mentions its quality, nothing else. Personally, I tend to think that Apple hardware is built better than Dell, etc. Perhaps I've just been lucky, but I've had far fewer DOA's, far fewer lemons with Apple than I have with most other commodity PC manufacturers. None of that, as far as I know, is disproven by the CPU similarities.

So you're saying that your Apple Intel Duo is right up there with the Dell Intel Duo, with the exact same CPUs, I'd hope so. What is your point?

His point is that, contrary to a lot of the bitching and moaning about price that a lot of people are doing, Apple products are finally getting reviews as being decently priced for the level of performance that they provide. Furthermore (and I don't know if this is what was meant by the original poster), a computer's performance depends on more than just the CPU (as you probably already know...) Stuff like the GPU, hard drive, RAM, and even the motherboard all factor in. While I can't speak for the quality of the hard drive and RAM, I do know that the GPUs in the new Intel Macs tend to be very good.

It's like the T-shirt made in the same Chinese factory, one half sent to Walmart to sell at $7 the other half sent to Designer store tagged at $50. It's hilarious to see these Apple fanatics rave about the quality and workmanship of their $5 shirts.

That point would be a lot more valid if Apple hardware were merely Dell hardware with a different sticker. It's not though. They may be made in the same country (my iBook was made in China, like some Dells,) but that does not mean that they were made in the same factory, or for that matter, using anything near the same components. So in reality, they're not the same designer shirt. Different material, different cut, and different factory.

Now, take Apples teet out of your mouth and mod me down!

I won't mod you down. Instead, I'll try and change your unfortunately misguided opinions of Mac users. While some may be fanatics, they are a small (albeit vocal) portion of our ranks. Fanatics exist on both sides (I'm sure you are familiar with anti-Apple fanatics), but that doesn't mean that one is a fanatic because they are part of a certain side.

-maz

Re:Why boot linux here?

[Anonymous Coward]

No offense, but your post is just ignorant. There are quite a few PC vendors which offer the quality and build of Apple products (Even great customer service). Hell, just to name a few, Sager and Asus, Acer Ferrai... I'm sure people can name a lot more than that. Not everyone is using a Dell (I agree, Dell is crap).

Not that I have anything against Apple, just open your eyes a bit. A lot of the hardware in Apple's new PC and notebooks are very similar to a lot of quality PC and notebook vendors, some of them costing a little less. In fact, you can buy barebone notebooks that can be built to whatever specification you want, and just as pretty as any Apple Notebook, with a far better warranty that any Apple product offers.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[heinousjay]

You corrected an assertion that wasn't made.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Speed. OS X has many nice feature, but the fast execution of some computationally intensive applications is not one of them. Ditto for databases. For a slightly dated comparison check out:

http://sekhon.berkeley.edu/macosx/

The key issue is that for the (floating point intensive) application I and this person care about, his 2.7 pound Pentium-M Linux laptop is faster than his 44 pound G5 running OS X. I don't know if this holds for the intel macs....

Re:Why boot linux here?

[Thrudheim]

Why is this modded insightful? I think it would have to show some insight. Instead, we get a t-shirt analogy that reveals simplistic logic rather than insight.

The poster's assumption is that all machines with Intel guts are identical, like the frabric of the t-shirt. Just slap on a case, or label in the case of the t-shirt, and ship it out. Obviously, that is not true. Manufactures make all kinds of component and design decisions that affect the quality of the product. Case construction varies greatly, as does screen quality, keyboard quality, and so forth. To pretend that these component decisions mean nothing is silly. If all machines were identical, there would be little or no variance across brands in terms of failure rates, but every study out there shows that variance does exist. Take the recent Consumer Reports reader suveys with a sample size of 134,000 machines. Over 20% of Gateway desktop machines had serious problems. In contrast, only 11% of Apple desktop machines did. The second best was Sony with 14%. Dell had 16%. Did those Gateway buyers really do themselvs a favor by getting a cheaper product?

By the poster's logic, an Intel Core Duo laptop is the same, regardless of which manufacturer it comes from. Apple's MacBook Pro weighs 5.6 pounds and is 1 inch thick. HP's dv5000t can be had for less money, but it is 16% heavier and 38% thicker. If the engineering required to make this happen is trivial, why don't all manufacters do it? For that matter, why are most PC's so ugly? Price. Manufactures cut corners where they can. This is not a t-shirt after all.

Manufacturers are smart. They know people buying technology love to look at numbers. Intel spent years emphasizing megahertz for a reason. Typically, we compare chip speeds, hard drive size, amount of RAM, etc. So, manufacturers oblige us by pumping up the commonly used specs and cutting costs elsewhere. Things like screen quality, weight, keyboard quality, quality of power supplies, and case strength are more likely overlooked by consumers. We may not see it up front, but over the life of the computer these cost-cutting decisions take their toll.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[GeffDE]

I know that the general stereotype is that OS X is an operating system that Granny can use, but surprisingly, it also has some of the nice "pro" features. Once you now what you're doing, things can be done amazingly quickly, from the ease of scripting with Apple Script and Automator to the ability to almost exclusively use the keyboard. I've found that I can go days without using the mouse in OS X. The customizable keyboard shortcuts available in system preferences mean no needing to navigate to menus, the application (Cmd-Tab) and window (Cmd-`) switcher and the ability to have the tab button focus on every single UI element (buttons, text boxes, drop-down menus) means that the mouse is almost completely superfluous. I've found this useful because using trackpads can get to be very annoying after a while...

Re:Why boot linux here?

[Lord Flipper]

Two words: Path Finder [cocoatech.com].

One word: Xfile

http://rixstep.com/4/0/xfile/

Re:Why boot linux here?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ways in which the Finder sucks, are even worse in PathFinder. It looks like they've merged a web browser and a file browser -- how this deserves any part of the "Finder" name is beyond me.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[n8_f]

Did they stop developing it during OS X 10.2? WTF is with the pinstripes? Is he going ol' school?

I really don't want anything developed by this guy. From his FAQ:

What's more, the Finder doesn't show you the Unix-specific data on files, such as their inodes.

If I want to see inodes, I go to the command line. That is exactly the kind of stuff I *don't* want to see in my file browser. I want to be able to get to my files, move them around, organize them, and not have to worry about anything else.

Index files are inaccurate and a poor substitute for speed. Write the programs right and the results are always 100% accurate with no disk space clutter and waste.

So you'd rather search through the contents of the hard drive each time than build an index file? That is faster? Thank God Apple doesn't subscribe to this guy's idea of "fast."

There are no hidden files in Xfile. The program is counting on you to be intelligent and to use discretion. Live up to its expectations.

I like my programs to have some intelligence. I like them to take care of the mundane things. If I have to think less about running them, then I can spend more time thinking about the stuff I need to get done.

Reading through this guy's site, he comes off as extremely cocky, like a djb without the talent. I'll stick to developers that want to make my life easier.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[abdulla]

The problem with that program is its interface, it's very loaded and doesn't have quite the simplicty and finish of finder. It comes in as a bit of a stark contrast against the look and feel I've come to expect of programs under OS X.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[Lord Flipper]

Reading through this guy's site, he comes off as extremely cocky, like a djb without the talent. I'll stick to developers that want to make my life easier.

Yeah, that's smart, judge an app by the 'writing style' of an intro blurb, and your warped interpretation of the developer's ability, based on it. Brilliant. You obviously never used the app, and your opinion is therefore less than worthless [irrelevant minus waste of space= less than zero worth]. Nice going. ha ha. Go back to OS 9.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[drsmithy]

With Apple now shipping x86 computers people are starting to realize that yea Apple hardware really is higher than average PC quality.

No, it's not. They use the same CPUs, the same hard disks, the same memory, the same chipsets, etc. In many cases they're even built on the same assembly lines.

The "Macs have better hardware" has been nothing more than Mac Zealotry since *at least* the PCI PowerMacs, and probably longer (particularly when you take into account the higher prices).

Apple x86 machines are jumping to the top of the list for performance vs price. Something that Apple Fanatics have been saying for years but no one really believed them.

No, they're still _very_ average in terms of price/performance, *unless* you attach significant value to the form factor. If you're happy with a beige box, it's not difficult to better the price/performance of a Mac.

The value in a Mac is not - and never has been - the hardware. It's the software that is packaged along with it.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[Cyberax]

One word: FAR ( http://www.farmanager.com/index.php?l=en )

It can do almost everything: http://www.farmanager.com/reviews.php?l=en

PS: No, Midnight Commander/XNC/Krusader/Deco doesn't have a fraction of features of FAR.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[hahiss]

My problems OSX have less to do with stereotypes and with my own experience over the years---on my own laptop years ago and on the computers of others in the intervening years. I always found myself wrestling with Apple's sense of workflow, having to kludge together 3rd party software, scripting, and the like.

What I had in mind was something more than being able to find a keyboard equivalent for commands:

1. Ratpoison

2. Ion

3. larswm

4. WMII

But you're definitely right that Apple has addressed the keyboarding issue; I should have been more precise here.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[__aaclcg7560]

People like you just gloss over it because it comes in a fancy package. It feels better even though it isn't. Shallow is what you are.

Surprisingly, my first impression of taking my Mac Mini (PowerPC) out of the box was all tactile. The weight, the construction, and all the surfaces felt "different". I'm not holding another piece of electronic equipment, but a masterpiece of computer engineering. That was a significant "wow" factor for me. Less than two months, I was completely switched over to the Mac. I used my Windows desktop for playing games and I use VNC on my Windows laptop to access my Mac desktop.

Re:Why boot linux here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Path Finder is two words. It's one more word than Finder. Finder is shameless. Path Finder is twice that. Look at what GNOME and KDE offer. Do Apple have a real file manager? Linux desktops always do. They're expected. But OS X is not Unix - not in any true sense of the word.

Path Finder is too much Finder. It's Finder cubed. It still doesn't give you what GNOME and KDE have. And poor Gehrman who authors it: Apple have now declared their Finder 'notorious' in their job ads for people to fix the putrid thing. When they do, Gehrman will go the same way as Arlo Rose and Perry Clark and Dan Wood before them.

Bottom line? Xfile is to OS X what Nautilus and Konqi are to their desktops. It doesn't offer everyone everything - only what you can't get in Finder, what you must have on any Unix platform, and what GNOME and KDE give you out of the box.

It's a 'standard setter' but the point isn't that it's good for what it is - the point is Apple are teh suck.

Admins look at OS X Server and then get shown Finder and walk away. They get shown Path Finder and they laugh first - and then walk away.

What a waste of money

[Quick Sick Nick]

I'm not going to buy a macbook until it can run all the major OSes and emulate Xbox, Xbox 360, PS2 and PS3. And it had to have a cell phone built in, as well as an iPod.

And it has to have an awesome case mod too. Because products are never good the way they are released, we always have to mess with them!

Re:What a waste of money

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on! Be happy with what you're given and don't try to improve! It's like I always say, why do people need to head past the Appalachians, anyway? It'll just make it that much harder for His Majesty to control all the riff raff.

Re:What a waste of money

[Quick Sick Nick]

Well, you have to ask yourself if it really improves things. I'd say it complicates things a whole lot more.

"Hey, where's that document I just wrote?"

"Oh, I made that in windows, I'll have to reboot"

Re:What a waste of money

[Midnight Thunder]

When it happens it will probably be on Emulation.net.

Re:What a waste of money

[kryten_nl]

"Oh, I made that in windows, I'll have to reboot"

That is the only situation you don't need to worry about. You have a point, but should really think about your examples.

Re:What a waste of money

[crossmr]

I'd like to see laptops have an "MP3" player feature. Where you slap it in your shoulderbag or backpack and plug in your headphones. A certain directory on the harddrive will be designated the "mp3 file storage" directory and there will be a set of basic external controls on the side of the laptop, say play, next, back, stop, shuffle.
The laptop battery will provide power to the hard drive to spin and to operate the head phones. It would be an awesome use for the person on the go who doesn't want to go gadget crazy.

Re:What a waste of money

[RemovableBait]

You mean like this?

Re:What a waste of money

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Well, you have to ask yourself if it really improves things. I'd say it complicates things a whole lot more.

"Hey, where's that document I just wrote?"

"Oh, I made that in windows, I'll have to reboot"

And why exactly did you format your Windows partition as NTFS and not FAT? At the least, make an additional FAT partition for documents.

Re:What a waste of money

[crossmr]

Close, but that seems specifically geared towards text retrieval, not actually turning on the HD to access music and using an audio system. If they built that functionality in, it would be great.

Re:What a waste of money

[RobertLTux]

umm the Linus kernel (aka what you get from kernel.org) has NTFS read ability (write is best done via "capture" i don't know about OSX but im sure they wouldn't forget that one.

Re:What a waste of money

[Anonymous Coward]

And why exactly did you format your Windows partition as NTFS and not FAT?

Are you seriously asking this in 2006? Wow.

Re:What a waste of money

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

And why exactly did you format your Windows partition as NTFS and not FAT?

Are you seriously asking this in 2006? Wow.

Yes, I am seriously asking this in 2006. I know that FAT is a sucky file system, but at least it can be read by Mac OS X. Maybe in 2010 when there's a reliable Free driver for NTFS, I won't ask this. I'm not suggesting you install the operating system and applications on FAT; I'm just suggesting you map your home folder, in Windows and in Mac OS, to something on a FAT partition.

Do you have a USB stick? It's formatted FAT, not NTFS, right?

What about a CD-RW? Can you even put NTFS on a CD-RW?

So what's the harm in FAT for documents? Just set up 3 partitions.

Re:What a waste of money

[Anonymous Coward]

having a FAT32 data partition is ok (for a single-user computer, anyway). Having a FAT32 system partition is bad, as in "back to Win9x days with everyone having write access to system files" bad. It's like writing Pwn me, I'm clueless on your digital forehead for all malware out there to see.

Re:What a waste of money

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

having a FAT32 data partition is ok (for a single-user computer, anyway). Having a FAT32 system partition is bad, as in "back to Win9x days with everyone having write access to system files" bad. It's like writing Pwn me, I'm clueless on your digital forehead for all malware out there to see.

NTFS security is just security via obscurity. If it's an unencrypted file format, the only reason malware can't get to your raw NTFS partitions is that they don't have drivers. Same for ext3 and all your other fun filesystems: if the kernel can get to it, a boot sector virus can get to it. FAT32 would be equally secure if the OS enforced file ownership via metadata.

Re:What a waste of money

[mrchaotica]

So what's the harm in FAT for documents?

I hate FAT because it doesn't preserve ownership and permissions correctly. Personally, my dual-boot computer uses NTFS and EXT3 (on LVM), and I just don't ever transfer files between Windows and Linux.

Of course, it also helps that the Windows partition contains only Solid Edge, Half-Life, and now recently Gothic II.

Re:What a waste of money

[Scudsucker]

I know that FAT is a sucky file system, but at least it can be read by Mac OS X.

So can Mac's, since at least Panther. Write support is another matter, so I would recommend having a Fat32 partition so you can move files back to Windows.

Re:What a waste of money

[NetNifty]

FAT32 is limited to 4GB file size, not too bad most of the time, but could be annoying if you wanted to store an ISO of a DVD for example.

FAT32?

[squidguy]

Great... Apple wants you to run the XP partition as FAT32 instead of NTFS... can we possibly make it more insecure?
Caveat emptor: I haven't bought my Mac yet so I can say that I haven't tried this... yet.

Re:FAT32?

[mAIsE]

Since when is any major OS vendor's security reached through obscurity of its file system ? I would contend NTFS is much like th binary word format, a format that helps microsoft alot more than the people that use it.

BTW apple does not required that the partition be FAT32, it is just more compatible and mountable with other OS's.

Re:FAT32?

[GweeDo]

I created an NTFS partition no problem. Mac OS X even mounted it for me to read from (I didn't try writing though...)

You really should research what you say before spewing lies.

Re:FAT32?

[Odiumjunkie]

Exactly what kind of security is file-system supported on a Macbook? If you're using your Macbook as a multi-user Windows server, using NTFS support of user private data - well, perhaps you should worry less about filesystem insecurity and more about hardware selection. NTFS support of private user data is pretty useless anyway, it's fairly trivial to work around, especially on a windows box.

Re:FAT32?

[colinrichardday]

Perhaps the GP believes that a file system with actual file permissions (such an NTFS) might be more secure than one without (FAT32). True, one still has to get the users to stop running as Administrator.

Re:FAT32?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is probably because there is no support for writing to NTFS.

Re:FAT32?

[hotdiggitydawg]

If you were worried about security, you wouldn't be installing Windows. So quit yer whinin'.

Re:FAT32?

[squidguy]

You really should research what you say before spewing lies.
Lies?
Here's what is in the wiki... Finally, it is best to stick with the advice given by Apple and format the windows partition as fat32. If you use ntfs there is a possibility the GPT/MBR partition tables will no longer agree. However if you do decide to stick with fat32 your windows partition cannot be greater than 32GB.

Re:FAT32?

[rikkards]

Unless you are creating file shares on the machine itself going with NTFS is moot. Assuming the user gets physical access to the machine and yanks the drive, it doesn't matter if you are running Fat32 or NTFS. NTFS permissions are trivial, unless you are using EFS encryption in XP, but then you could always use PGP or Truecrypt or any other 3rd party encryption.

Re:FAT32?

[MustardMan]

Apple doesn't "want you to" use fat32. They helpfully suggest using it, as mac os x cannot natively write to an ntfs partition, but it can write to fat32. It's a simple practical consideration, not some conspiracy.

Re:FAT32?

[popeguilty]

Are we unaware of Captive NTFS?

Re:FAT32?

[Benzido]

That latin phrase you keep saying - I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:FAT32?

[woolio]

Isn't it suicide to use the built-in encryption in Windows?

My understanding is that when the OS is reinstalled, it generates a use unique identifier for the system and the encryption uses this....

Which means if something bad happens and you reinstall, you can kiss all your encrypted volumes goodbye. (unless you have an (unencrypted) backup)

Re:FAT32?

[WhiteWolf666]

There's no non-Windows write support for NTFS, barring captive NTFS (which uses Window's DLL) and the latest linux NTFS driver, which does NOT support changing file sizes or creating new files (frankly it barely qualifies as write support).

NTFS is a moving target. Reading is not a big problem, since it won't corrupt the disk. Writing to the disk is very difficult.

Don't blame Apple, blame Microsoft. HFSplus is properly documents, NTFS is not. .....

Look at it this way; you say that NTFS support is limited on OS X? Well, what about HFS+ support in Windows? Right; it doesn't exist.

Re:FAT32?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Assuming the user gets physical access to the machine

Don't be daft, of course it doesn't protect you from users with physical access determined to get your data, no non-encrypted FS does.

NTFS allows you to use non-admin accounts (yes, you CAN do that and get useful work done) with privilege seperation. On FAT, any user can overwrite any file, not so on NTFS. Running as non-admin with NTFS stops most malware dead in its tracks, so it is much safer.

Arguing that NTFS is no safer than FAT because users with physical access can steal you data is like arguing that file permissions on HFS+ are useless and you might as well chmod 777 everything.

Re:FAT32?

[quakeroatz]

Linux has a decent FS driver for NTFS. Last time I checked, writing was experimental, but it has worked flawlessly for me. Does BSD not have a similar driver? Or is BSD code on OSX a pain in the ass?

Do you really boot into OSX and open your Linux "toolbox"? Or are you left with a small handful of Linux code that actually runs on OSX?

Re:FAT32?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked, writing was experimental, but it has worked flawlessly for me.

This driver is at least 6 years old and they STILL haven't gotten stable writing to NTFS partitions working yet? Why is this so difficult? They could've written a dozen journaling filesystems in the amount of time it took to get the half-assed NTFS support implemented. Can't they just phone up Microsoft and get some tips on what they're having a problem with?

Re:FAT32?

[nauseaboy]

That's incorrect. You have to back up your certificate and usually good to go, failing this (and hopefully a bit of forthought) you can recover encrypted volumes through use of a recovery agent. A recovery agent is a user account with a certificate capable of recovering the lost volumes. On workgroups this is the local administrator account. On a domain it's the domain administrator by default. The catch is that before you implement EFS you have to designate the recovery agent. So it's very possible to recover lost data on an ntfs volume. You just have to be smart about it.

Re:FAT32?

[macslut]

As others have pointed out, you're wrong. The MacBook I'm using right now has HFSx and NTFS partitions. In OS X, I can read from NTFS, but not write to it. In Windows XP, I've installed MacDrive which allows reading and/or writing to HFSx. The "or" part being key and I've disabled writing to HFSx since it really isn't needed and poses a security/safety issue.

And yes, this works like a charm. I was up late last night playing GTA San Andreas...friggin' beautiful.

Re:FAT32?

[mikesd81]

Then what would it matter, it'd just be closes sournce and you'd have to buy it to mount an NTFS partition.

Re:FAT32?

[Firehed]

Writing to the disk is very difficult.

Yet hundreds of millions do it every day. Of course over a certain size (32GB I think), a FAT32 format isn't even an option with the windows installer. And that's what most people use when formatting for a new XP installation.

Re:FAT32?

[mycall]

"However if you do decide to stick with FAT32 your windows partition cannot be greater than 32GB. " I thought this wasn't true.

Re:FAT32?

[vought]

Great... Apple wants you to run the XP partition as FAT32 instead of NTFS... can we possibly make it more insecure?

Armed with the knowledge that Apple doesn't do stupid things on purpose*, what could possibly the reason that they don't do r/w on NTFS volumes?

-Licensing? Does MS license the NTFS volume format? I wouldn't expect Apple to pay for this, except under a grand co-announcement that MS is now supporting HFS+. In other words, no bloody likely.
-Engineering effort? Is there an open source project Apple could leverage to add NTFS r/w to HFS+?
-NIH? (Not Invented Here syndrome) Does Apple refuse to bolster NTFS' legitimacy by only supporting a subset of it's features?

*Anymore.

Maybe if we understood why Apple isn't providing complete NTFS read/write support (I don't need journaling, compression, etc.) we might have a better idea what the best alternatives are.

Re:FAT32?

[Brandybuck]

It's a simple practical consideration, not some conspiracy.

Everything is a conspiracy to most people on Slashdot.

Re:FAT32?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, in actual practise it fails every time.

Re:FAT32?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to be, but you're not helping.

Re:FAT32?

[Geordie Korper]

Actually HFS+ support for Windows does exist, it just isn't free. Mediafour http://www.mediafour.com/products/macdrive6/bootca mp.asp and Dataviz both have products that do it (although I am pretty sure they are actually the same code).

Re:FAT32?

[Ash-Fox]

> NTFS support of private user data is pretty useless anyway, it's fairly trivial to work around, especially on a windows box.

I don't see how, unless you're giving all your users a administrator acount.

Re:FAT32?

[WhiteWolf666]

Yet hundreds of millions do it every day.

Using secret, closed-source software developed by the file system designers.

What's your point?

NTFS is an overly complex file system, with incomplete documentation. Making small changes to it tends to break it and/or corrupt data.

Furthermore, why not just run NT/2000/XP on Ext2? Use a small FAT32 boot partition, and keep all your data on Ext2.

File system driver here. You can get read/write support on Ext2 on all major operating systems, and Linux will journal Ext2(Ext3 is a transparent upgrade).

Re:FAT32?

[pcjabber]

Maybe if we understood why Apple isn't providing complete NTFS read/write support (I don't need journaling, compression, etc.) we might have a better idea what the best alternatives are.

Probably because no one offers complete NTFS read/write support except Microsoft. The Linux NTFS support is read with very limited write support (you can't change filesize or create new files).

AFAIK, for now, it's just not possible using anything other than Microsoft OSes/DLLs/etc.

Re:multiboot

[terwey]

it's probably because of the whole: "OMG IT USES EFI" instead of BIOS thing...

Boot windows

[backslashdot]

While you guys with macs are looking to boot into windows, I'm looking to boot windows OFF of my laptop.

Sometimes I think I should be in comedy. Funny, yes i know.

Re:Boot windows

[RevWhite]

What is even funnier is that you have been modded up, but not as funny!

At any rate, I don't think people are buying Macs just to boot them into Windows instead (a few geeky types are, but they are in the minority). People buy Macs because they are more secure, more stable, or shinier, depending on what is important to them.

Re:Boot windows

[jb.hl.com]

Funny, yes i know.

No, you're not.

Sweet, but what about dual boot?

[fak3r]

This is cool, I like it, but I want to dual boot on the Mac Mini; and by dual boot I mean like I have it now on my old iBook -- OS X and Linux. I don't want Windows on it. So, my question, when you boot holding down the 'option' key on the Mac can you make it so you'll have the option of OS X or Linux instead of having to rely on the NT bootloader to choose Linux? I'm sure after that you could hack out the Windows icon so you just have the X and Tux on the select screen.

So, can it be done? Would it require hacking Boot Camp? Did Apple make this easy to modify? Also, I saw that the Linux ATI drivers work; do they support the graphics card in the Minis? I'm waiting for my local shop to get the Mini Duo Core's in, then I'll likely jump in, but I want to dual boot from there, like I do now.

Re:Sweet, but what about dual boot?

[Jim Hall]

This is cool, I like it, but I want to dual boot on the Mac Mini; and by dual boot I mean like I have it now on my old iBook -- OS X and Linux. I don't want Windows on it. So, my question, when you boot holding down the 'option' key on the Mac can you make it so you'll have the option of OS X or Linux .. ?

I've played with Boot Camp, but haven't done much with it. But from what I understand by reading the wiki, you can create a dual-boot MacOSX/Linux system. However, the BootCamp Assistant seems (inferred by TFA) to prefer you have one partition per operating system on the disk space you set up. I don't understand why, though (when I booted FreeDOS, then ran FDISK, it appeared as though the presented "hard drive" had no partitions, suggesting you could create your own partitions.)

If you want to be safe, I'd go ahead and follow the usual instructions with BootCamp Assistant, create a single Linux partition (no swap), and create a swap file in that partition.

At least, I infer that from TFA. As I said, when I experimented with it, it looked like you could create partitions as you would on any PC, when you booted into the "Windows" area (faked BIOS.)

I'll try this on the iMac I have at work in the next week ... see my web site for updates.

Re:Sweet, but what about dual boot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps someone can answer my question regarding boot camp... there's been a lot of speculation about why Apple released it. I can't help wondering if it is related to the inclusion of a Treacherous Computing TPM. Apple is rearchitecting its operating system around the idea of trust. The hardware checks the digital signature of the BIOS, the BIOS checks the bootloader, the bootloader checks the kernel... and so on up the software stack. This allows Apple to enforce the use of certain base software if you wish to run their app software (I'm think of DRM for iTunes)... you can't replace or alter (or even see) any of the bits underneath without the machine suddenly not being "trusted", and either not running iTunes or at the very least refusing to play protected content.

Where does "Boot Camp" come into this? I can't help think that Apple *had* to have an official multiple choice bootloader. Without it, developers (who need that capability) would have to rely on third-party ones -- and a third party one would not be signed by Apple... and hence breaking that chain of trust... their machine would not be "trusted", and would be locked out of things like (in future) Apple's update server, or (as I mentioned earlier) iTunes.

So in that sense, Apple simply had to have "Boot Camp" in order not to really piss off developers, or just customers who want to try out other operating systems.

Re:Sweet, but what about dual boot?

[WhiteWolf666]

Do NOT mess with the partitions. Seriously.

Use diskutil's resizeVolume command to create (up to 4) the partitions you need. You cannot have more than 3 "real" partitions on your system (OS X uses #1 for the EFI stuff).

BootCamp works by having an MBR and a GPT partition table simultaneously. There are no partition tools out there that correctly edit both at the same time. Doing it by hand via's OS X's GPT/FDISK tools often fails, as well. I have no idea why.

I'm one of the people who started messing with this triple boot first. Trust me; you don't want to mess with parted or fdisk (in Linux/FreeBSD/whatever). If you do decide to, go to mactel-linux.org, and get the parted patch, and then make sure you use the GPT tool in OS X to create a set of matching MBR/GUID partition tables.

But I promise you; you'll have to wipe your disk if you start messing with these partition tables. Nobody knows the correct way to handle them, yet. More experimentation is needed, and there's a good chance that at any given point in the process you'll corrupt your disk.

Re:Sweet, but what about dual boot?

[wild_berry]

My tentative suggestion -- given that I have no Apple computers and no experience with BootCamp -- would be to take the bootloader from ReactOS for its Win2k-like behaviour and stick it and grldr from the Grub4DOS in a primary-4 (as in fourth primary partition as the MBR looks at it) partition a couple of megabytes in size, then you have primary-2 and primary-3 and their extended partitions to use with your GNU/Linux installation. The Grub4DOS may need its Grub.exe and its stage-specific files updated to cope with EFI booting, and this may be the stumbing-block of the enterprise. Good luck!

Re:Sweet, but what about dual boot?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, can it be done?

Yes. It has been done. You can find info to dual boot Linux on IMacs (that's Intel Macs) here and here.

Re:Sweet, but what about dual boot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Fdisk tools only edit the MBR. But yes, you can boot linux using Boot Camp, or you could head on over to http://www.mactel-linux.org/wiki/Main_Page and start poking around. 3D acceleration works with the ATI drivers if you install using Boot Camp. :-)

I, for one...

[SheeEttin]

I, for one, welcome our new triple-booting overlords.

Re:I, for one...

[Agret]

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

OS X... why Linux

[DiscoNick]

Why would one bother using Linux if OS X offers all the features (well ok, most) of Linux, and the only feature Windows has -- some games (WoW anyone?). I've finally made the switch to Ubuntu on my work PC, but would be just as productive in the OS X environment w/o the need to ditch Aqua. Besides, XOrg can easily be installed in OS X...

WoW Mod:Speed up World of Warcraft Load Times!

Re:OS X... why Linux

[4e617474]

Why would one bother using Linux if OS X offers all the features

I've got a Linux box (PII - 300Mhz) on my LAN that handles all the BitTorrent traffic so that my main machine never has to have any ports open, and it has an FTP server that runs exactly when I want it to. I don't think installing on a $20 thrift store PC and doing anything useful is an OS X feature. The retail OS CD's are dual-layer DVD's! And that doesn't include iLife! And I haven't run across an ad for web hosting that offered an OS X server. Sometimes the right tool for the right job means something else, even if what you've got going is really good.

Re:OS X... why Linux

[rhesuspieces00]

What does that have to do with running Linux on a Macbook Pro? The question is not why would one install Linux, ever. Its why would one want Linux and OS X on the same machine, when OS X will run most linux software already anyway?

Re:OS X... why Linux

[compm375]

Since when is a Intel Mac a $20 thrift store pc. It might be in several years, but I believe the grandparent was asking why someone would want to run Linux on an Intel Mac now.

Re:OS X... why Linux

[DjCheeto]

Different strokes for different folks, now go away troll

Re:OS X... why Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Because KDE beats hell out of OS X when it comes to managing more than 5 windows.

Re:OS X... why Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I just bought single core intel macmini. OSX on it feels much slower on it than linux system on my older hardware. It takes longer to start any application, menus are not as responsive. Just for that reason I find linux desktop nicer. I use same apps on both linux and osx.

Re:OS X... why Linux

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Sounds a little defensive to me. I think the point of the grandparent is that there's little point in rebooting to get to Linux if you already have an OS X capable computer. A good load of free software works on OSX as UNIX and X11 programs. Last I heard (last year) Linux on a laptop isn't likely to sleep or hybernate well, and doesn't necessarily have good hardware support for features typically found in a laptop. I know a few people that have Linux desktops and servers, but have a Mac laptop because of this.

Linux does have plenty of value for the reasons you state.

And I haven't run across an ad for web hosting that offered an OS X server.

They exist, but there's probably not much point in it as OS X server offers admin tools that might not be available in a sub-server instance. An OS X web server would be just like any other UNIX server.

Re:OS X... why Linux

[Neoprofin]

So if you had a brand spanking new Intel Powerbook why would you need to triple boot it?

That was his actual question.

The answer of course, much like putting linux on an iPod even though the Apple firmware offers better MP3 playback, is becasue you can.

Re:OS X... why Linux

[zlogic]

I hate feeding the troll, but I still will reply.
Under Windows there are lots of special apps that don't run in OSX or Linux:
Autocad
3ds max
Multisim
Dreamweaver/Flash (I think)
Hundreds of games...
And running them in Wine doesn't work at all or requires a lot of hacking. Even if you do make the software work, it will look pretty alien (widgets, filesystem-tied stuff, themes etc.) in a Linux or OSX environment. And if you use only one Windows-only app, what's the point of using an OS other than Windows? My dad uses 3ds max and Autocad and he won't suddenly forget all he knows and switch to QCad/Blender. He will have a steep learning curve, during which he won't be doing anything useful, and he won't benefit much in the end because Autocad has a lot of features no free (or linux/osx-supported) *CAD aplication has, and these features are actually *useful*.

Re:OS X... why Linux

[caffeination]

What the fuck? What does WoW have to do with this?

Re:OS X... why Linux

[CableModemSniper]

Dreamweaver/Flash (I think)

Just to clarify, both Dreamweaver and Flash are available on OS X.

Re:OS X... why Linux

[The Hobo]

Why don't you use a real sig instead of comment spamming? There's a reason they're optional.

Re:OS X... why Linux

[Frumious Wombat]

Having a spare goat for the troll this morning....

Too keep your linux chops up in case you want a job at a Linux-based organization? Because there is always some app that's not quite happy with the BSDish nature of OS-X, and won't quite build correctly? Because it's a precompiled binary that isn't going to run on OS-X no matter how many black chickens you sacrifice by the dark of the moon?

And, of course, just because you can. It's better than booting Windows on it; at least you don't feel dirty afterwards.

Re:OS X... why Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

That is illogical. What are you trying to do, get Anonymous posters a bad reputation? You are comparing OSX running on one piece of hardware with Linux running on another. Why don't you do the logical thing and dual boot your Mac Mini and install Linux in another partition and do a real valid set of benchmarks?

Re:OS X... why Linux

[Bralkein]

Maybe you could be developing software that you want to run on Linux as well as OS X. Maybe you have decided that from an ethical standpoint you no longer want to use closed software, but you only know how to use OS X, so you want to ease yourself into Linux by dual-booting for a while. Maybe Linux distributions generally give you more ability to tinker around with the guts of the system, which is something you find enjoyable and educational. Maybe you just think it's a pretty cool thing to do!

No offence, you don't seem like a troll, but this is kind of a silly question that seems to come up every time there is an article on /. about running Linux on a Mac. Even if there was absolutely no sensible reason for doing it whatsoever, plenty of nerdy people would still find it a fun thing to do. If you read Slashdot, then surely you must realise this :-)

Re:OS X... why Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Because OSX sloooooow, doesn't have many applications: no java 1.6, a non-working OpenOffice port, no GNU utilities (forget the fink crap). Want more reasons?

Re:OS X... why Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

> both Dreamweaver and Flash are available on
> OS X.

On x86? I don't think so.

Re:OS X... why Linux

[iSwitched]

While I agree with you about the benfits of Linux on low cost PCs - your coment about mac hosting only proves you havent looked very hard.

Re:OS X... why Linux

[noewun]

t I heard (last year) Linux on a laptop isn't likely to sleep or hybernate well, and doesn't necessarily have good hardware support for features typically found in a laptop.

FWIW, I dual boot OS X and Ubuntu on the last generation Powerbook G3, and the thing hibernates and sleeps like a champ under Linux. The Ubuntu installer did a great job a recognizing all the hardware. I know there are some problems with wireless in Linux, but as I don't have wireless on that machine I can't comment. Also, FWIW, Ubuntu isn't noticeably faster than 10.4.6 on this machine.

Now, as to why someone would want to triple boot? Because they can.

Re:OS X... why Linux

[Ash-Fox]

Eww, letting operating systems touch, are you crazy?

Re:OS X... why Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Because people who complain loudly, but post AC generally can't support their complaints with valid benchmarks.

Re:OS X... why Linux

[Ohreally_factor]

Aaron Faby rules. If I needed to pay for webhosting, I'd go with Server Logistics.

Re:OS X... why Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

lol. From my POV, there is no reason why i would want OSX on my current ibook. I always boot into linux. More applications available (although i probably can spend time on making them running under OSX, but why should i?), and, personally, I like the UI more than aqua. I'm just more productive in KDE. And I do not care about eyecandy too much anyway. Also, under linux i can suspend to disk, i don't thing OSX can do that easily.

Lastly, I get free updates for linux. Whereas now I'm stuck with an OSX version that refuses to properly support firewire on this hardware. You get only shit with a closed software platform. I'm perfectly happy to stay away from it. Even if I would buy a macbook (but i think it is not worth it), i instantly install linux, and never look back.

Re:OS X... why Linux

[pembo13]

Wasnt' the questino "why install Linux" ?

Re:OS X... why Linux

[Sithgunner]

From a really narrow point of view, you can say Mac OS X has many of the feature Linux has, when you ONLY talk something about some desktop apps.
Great for you, but then again there are people like software developers be it web or not, that wants to check things out if things work in various environments.
Not only that, there are many applications of one's favourite only running on one particular platform and may want to use it from time to time.
Hell, I'd even put triple boot just to check out how Linux is maturing while using other two OS as main daily OS.

So... let's get it straight, everyone aren't average joe who only cares about how to use email and browser on his comp and cheers Apple while hating MS.

Re:OS X... why Linux

[Proteus]

Why would one bother using Linux if OS X offers all the features (well ok, most) of Linux

Well, it depends on what you mean by "all the features". I have a G4-based PowerBook, and I dual-boot Linux and OSX. Let me explain why.

First and foremost, I'm a developer and tester; not just professionally, but also as a hobby. This means testing in multiple environments, and having Windows, Linux, and OSX handy is a boon (even if I only get Windows via slow emulation). Not to mention that things like Rational Application Developer, that are required professionally, don't run on OSX. (To be fair, they don't run on PPC Linux either, which is why I keep a ThinkPad around -- but on an Intel Mac...).

Secondly, there are tasks that are better suited to a Linux environment, IMO. For example, when I'm doing heavy document production, I like to use OpenOffice. OpenOffice on OSX is extremely limited (no access to font library, native printers, app-to-app drag-n-drop, etc.), and the "native" port NeoOffice/J has performance and some compatibility issues. So, I boot to Linux for such tasks (instead of forking over a couple hundred dollars for MS-Office).

Thirdly, there are a number of nice tools and applications available under Linux that are either not ported to, or incomplete for, OSX. Fink and the like are great, but there's a long way to go if the goal is "every Linux and BSD app working perfectly under OSX".

Also, while booted into Linux, I have access to Mac-on-Linux -- so I can have a virtualized (not emulated) OSX session in a window or on another vt/desktop. This is extremely happy for software testing!

Now if only...

[ZSpade]

I could install a version of OSX on my Toshiba Tablet PC, and have it support the pressure sensative display.

You see, unlike just about anything else, I would PAY for that. I sincerely hope this is a step in that direction for MAC. As of right now their nothing more than a glorified Dell with their own proprietary OS.

Re:Now if only...

[rhesuspieces00]

As of right now their nothing more than a glorified Dell with their own proprietary OS. Thats like saying a porsche is nothing more than a glorified VW bug with a better engine.

Re:Now if only...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Thats like saying a porsche is nothing more than a glorified VW bug with a better engine.

Porche president: Eep! Who leaked?!

Re:Now if only...

[Agret]

Thats like saying a porsche is nothing more than a glorified VW bug with a better engine.
Well you sure picked a bad analogy to use, since when did a porsche use the same components as a VW bug?

Re:Now if only...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well you sure picked a bad analogy to use, since when did a porsche use the same components as a VW bug?"

Maybe not a bug, but VW and Porsche do have a business partnership and extensively share the same components in vehicles.

Re:Now if only...

[lezerno]

"The first Porsche, the Porsche 64 from 1938, used many components from the Volkswagen Beetle." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche

Re:Now if only...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh slashdot... why argue about the article when you can argue over someone's analogy?

Re:Now if only...

[Agret]

Lies.....shutup

Re:Now if only...

[Nightspirit]

I would finally switch to apple if they came out with a mac tablet.

Re:Now if only...

[mrchaotica]

I feel exactly the same way, except that I don't already own a Tablet PC, so right now I'm researching which one is likely to work best with Mac OS.

Could you tell me a little about your Tecra? What are the CPU, northbridge, graphics chip, wireless, etc.? Is the digitizer a Wacom, or something else? How does it interface with the system (serial or USB)?

Perfect opportunity for NetBSD.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a perfect opportunity for the NetBSD crowd. They're experts at creating an OS that runs very well on very specific machinery. With some effort and direction, they could produce the premiere alternative UNIX for these Mac systems.

We haven't seen a comparably standardized system since the SGI Indy, and that was over a decade ago. This time around the system is far more affordable, too. It'll lower the participation barrier for your average Joe and Jill Developer.

Re:Perfect opportunity for NetBSD.

[Cal Paterson]

What do you mean? NetBSD _does_ run on these macs.

Re:Perfect opportunity for NetBSD.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a perfect opportunity for the NetBSD crowd. They're experts at creating an OS that runs very well on very specific machinery. With some effort and direction, they could produce the premiere alternative UNIX for these Mac systems.

These are standard PC laptops. If an "alternative UNIX" is the best on other laptops, then it is the best on these. NetBSD already runs on these, as does Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, SUSE, and every other Unix that runs on standard PCs.

Since Apple updated the firmware to add legacy BIOS support, these are standard PC laptops, that just happen to have Apple's EFI implementation and the specific chipsets supported by Apple as well so that they can boot OS X.

Re:Perfect opportunity for NetBSD.

[Ash-Fox]

I thought it was something derived from darwin.

Re:Perfect opportunity for NetBSD.

[magetoo]

What do you mean? NetBSD _does_ run on these macs.

Last I heard, there was some issue having to do with ACPI that prevented it from working. (source: post on mailing list)

But there's apparently a good chance it will run, maybe even with native EFI support

mnb Re:FAT32?

[Anonymous Coward]

Informative?
GP post is talking about the fact you can assign permissions on NTFS, and not FAT.
I can use NTFS partitions on my *nix box, so just how obscure is it?
I don't think you understand the phrase "security through obscurity."

In Soviet-Russia...

[kryten_nl]

In Soviet-Russia, newsletters about triple-booting overlords subscribe YOU!

Re:In Soviet-Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a triple-boot Mac (an iMac Core Duo 2.0 w/1 Gig of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium 4 1.5 GHz running XP Pro, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

Re:In Soviet-Russia...

[kryten_nl]

We tried that 'iMac Core Duo 2.0 w/1 Gig of RAM' at work, after a recommendation by Steve (not his real name), he said he used one before at a former employer. The point being that it's a lot faster and has a lower TCO compared to anything else on the shelves then (we're talking back in the day, when I had to walk to work through 3 ft. of snow, uphill BOTH WAYS). Anyway, we convinced our supervisor that this new system would make our work much more productive. He decided that we would test the system while working on this EA project, hoping that it would cut our estimated work week from 170 hours to 100 hours. Like you suggested, the boxen was totally inadequate. Short story, Steve got fired after the project totally bombed. We lost the account and half the company commited suicide. So: Get Some PRIORITIES!

MacIntel - CHRP?

[Ralph Spoilsport]

From my perspective, the Macintel computer is the fulfilment of the CHRP dream from the mid-1990s. For those too young to remember, CHRP (pronounced Chirp) was an idea from Apple that stood for Common Hardware Reference Platform. Such a computer would exist outside of Operating Systems - it could and would run anything. It never really got off the ground, for obvious reasons.

I always thought CHRP was a great idea, and it seems to me that the MacIntel platform running bootcamp IS the reincarnation of CHRP. I think that if Apple can run the price of their hardware down enough and incorporate things like card readers etc. into the front panel, they could really increase market share in a big way. For example:

Here's an interesting idea, that could save a company vast sums of cash:

Buy apple hardware, and triple boot the suckers, and wave bye bye to the vast collection of test boxen that clutter the labs.

Granted: specific software that is dependent on specific hardware that doesn't fly with the mac platform won't be testable, but some huge vast percentage of what is out there doesn't operate that way, and this would especially be true of internet based applications.

So, instead of using a old Intel box that's been re-grooved to do Linux (initial cost, say, $1000) and ANOTHER Intel/AMD box for Windows (say, another $1000) and an Apple computer to test the Apple build (say, $1500), you now just buy the MacIntel box, ($1500) and install Windows and Linux and you're done.

This multiboot thing will be especially impressive as Microsoft continues along this idiotic path of multiple flavours of Windows. God ferbid they just make one REALLY GOOD version that does the job properly (a la OSX).

But this Bootcamp thing could save some companies millions of dollars. They could upgrade their labs to Apple computers, run bootcamp, and say bye bye to HP/Dell/Gateway/etc. forever, fulfilling the beautiful vision of CHRP.

Works for me.

RS

Re:MacIntel - CHRP?

[rhesuspieces00]

Thats not bad, but virtualization is coming and that will be better.

Imagine, instead, an 8-core Mac, possibly with a handful of drives attached, running OS X as its primary OS, with some subset of {Win98, Win2000, WinNT, WinXP, Linux (your choice of distribution), *BSD, etc.}, simultaneously each in a window of its own. Ideally, you could even virtualize another layer of OS X as a testing sandbox. If any OS goes down, you kill the process and load from some previously saved memory state. Screw rebooting.

Re:MacIntel - CHRP?

[salimma]

Although CHRP was supposed to be a non-PC platform, whereas Apple's new approach is "PC Plus": you can run things a PC can run, and youc an run Mac OS too.

Re:MacIntel - CHRP?

[crunchly]

I think they might be close to finishing up Pink as well.

Re:MacIntel - CHRP?

[Maserati]

Macs have always been good in multi-bhoot configurations. Way back in the dotcom days our QA department handed us a list of 45 PC configurations (OS and browser combos) and 14 Mac system. This request was made in all seriousnous, as if even a dotcom could come up with the office space for an extra 60 machines. We got the PC test builds done with removable hard drives (Orb drives - easier to swap than IDE removables) . For the Macs I just partitioned the drives 8 ways, named them appropriately and installed the OS and browser required on each. Startup Disk.cdev was a great bootloader for that situation.

These days VMWare or another virtualization environment would be the better choice.

Re:MacIntel - CHRP?

[JazzCrazed]

Did they create this platform, or did they just merely jump on the same boat as the rest? A common hardware platform seems to me to have existed already when they switched to x86. I was already dual booting and virtualizing Linux and XP, after all... It was just as simple as compiling OS X for x86 to have common hardware for all three - in which case I wouldn't credit Apple with creating the platform; just joining in the party.

But I'm too much a n00b to know the specifics on CHRP, so feel free to fill in with any dissenting technical details.

Re:MacIntel - CHRP?

[NutscrapeSucks]

Lets see:
* CHRP was an attempt to replicate PC-Clone economics for PowerPC
* CHRP cratered
* PowerPC became uneconomic
* Apple belatedly switches to PC-Clones
* You claim that Apple PC-Clones are reincarnation of CHRP.

No, that doesn't add up.

(I will agree that Apple will sell a lot of dual-boot boxes, espciallally when they start bundling Windows.)

Re:MacIntel - CHRP?

[Florian]

Such a computer would exist outside of Operating Systems - it could and would run anything.

You must have got something wrong. CHRP simply was a specification for an open standard PowerPC hardware platform, just as the IBM PC is an open standard for x86-based hardware.

Re:MacIntel - CHRP?

[Frumious Wombat]

Let's not get too nostalgic. CHRP partly died due to Apple, since they insisted on doing things slightly differently from the standard. We were looking forward to CHRP OS/2 machines, (*sigh*), which quickly materialized and dematerialized almost simultaneously. That would have been a great time for IBM to buy a sufficiently large stake in Apple to make them behave, then offer PPC machines with the MacOS:OS/2:AIX option. Most probably OS/2 would have still faded away, and we would have had cheapish machines (by IBM standards) running MacOS on the desktop, with a clear upgrade path to AIX-based Power machines when you finally needed the Big Iron.

Or we'd still have OS-X, except instead of BSD underpinnings, it would have AIX. One can only imagine what the Aqua version of SMIT would have been like.

Re:MacIntel - CHRP?

[rob_squared]

just as the IBM PC is an open standard for x86-based hardware.

If by open you mean, "Dammit! They found out how to reverse engineer the BIOS," then no, they're not similiar.

Re:MacIntel - CHRP?

[NutscrapeSucks]

OS/2 & WinNT & AIX already had a perfectly good PowerPC hardware spec called PReP. The problem was that nobody wanted WinNT-PPC and OS/2-PPC never shipped past beta (and nobody wanted it either). And the main reason for that is that PPC offered practically no advantage over Intel -- it was not really faster and it was much more expensive.

So PowerPC ended up in a situation where Apple was moving 99% of the desktop units. The idea that Apple was somehow going to drive WinNT or OS/2 adoption through CHRP was kind of silly. CHRP had nerd-appeal, but there really was no business case for it.

Re:MacIntel - CHRP?

[Siward]

This multiboot thing will be especially impressive as Microsoft continues along this idiotic path of multiple flavours of Windows. God ferbid they just make one REALLY GOOD version that does the job properly (a la OSX).

I'm trying to imagine how this would make sense. I cannot fathom an single operating system that works well for my desktop at work, our company's system administrators, and my mother. I'm perfectly happy running Windows XP Pro at work, and I ran 2k Pro for a long time, but this would be overkill for my mother who needs things to be simple. Conversely, "simple" doesn't do much for us at work where we have probably 150 people on my floor working on different projects. I came a university that ran a unix network and it ran flawlessly (most of the time), but my workplace network is entirely Windows-based and runs pretty smoothly (until you have to hunt down someone who can give you access your new project's source code repository, but that would be a problem in any company this size). However, I try to think about my mom running any sort of OS which could also handle this environment, and I imagine myself having a six hour phone conversation trying to tell my mom how to check her e-mail. Maybe Apple has bridged this gap between the highly technical, highly scalable and easy to use and my Mac-using friends have never told me, but I sure don't know of it. And honestly, out of all the things to hate about Windows, the multiple versions? I guess we can't even agree on what to hate about Windows these days.

Re:MacIntel - CHRP?

[dryeo]

IBM did ship the PPC version of OS/2 in Dec '95. Here is a page of someone running it. http://pages.prodigy.net/michaln/history/os2ppc/in dex.html

Re:MacIntel - CHRP?

[NutscrapeSucks]

That was the non-production beta I alluded to. Real thing never shipped.
See here for more info.

Re:MacIntel - CHRP?

[dryeo]

You're more or less right, it was beta quality though it seems I have seen the part number and it did include GA, meaning general availability.
I think IBM was playing the MS game, if it compiles, ship it.
OS/2 ver 4 shipped pretty broken too IIRC

Re:MacIntel - CHRP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Apple has bridged this gap between the highly technical, highly scalable and easy to use and my Mac-using friends have never told me, but I sure don't know of it. And honestly, out of all the things to hate about Windows, the multiple versions?

To help prove your latter point, Mac OS X actually does have multiple versions: Mac OS X Server, Mac OS X Client, and Darwin (not entirely Mac OS X, but its Open Source guts). Criticizing an OS for having multiple versions is a little strange, but that said, Microsoft's dizzying array of options for Vista is a support nightmare waiting to happen. If it were just Home, Pro, and Server (or something reasonable), it'd make more sense.

And to help emphasize that Mac OS X really is "highly technical, highly scalable and easy to use", it is based on NeXTStep/OpenStep. It was originally developed for Intel then ported to PowerPC, where it also had to support an old Motorola 68k emulator in Classic. Now it's getting back to its roots. OpenStep was considered on par with Sun's operating systems, if not better, so all the enterprise-class buzzwords apply. By default on Tiger and later, the Mac terminal defaults to bash, the same shell through which many Linux geeks work their magic. It comes with a lot of cool Unix-common stuff pre-installed: Apache server, PHP, Python, Perl, Java, etc. X11 is an optional install with a set of pretty good dev tools.

I do some technical support for retired folks using OSX Tiger on iBools and iMacs to Skype with the grandkids, e-mail recipes, play bridge, balance checkbooks, pay taxes, trade stocks, etc. They can do most of what they want without my help, without having used a computer before, and without knowing that sharing files between Mac and PCs was ever a problem. Biggest problem with ease-of-use is the help feature is slow to launch, and a few dialog boxes are confusing/scary.

In addition to all the geeky Unix stuff and friendly interface, most professional productivity and creativity software titles for Windows (from Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, etc.) also have a Mac OS X version, but not a Linux version.
In short, if you need geeky, businesslike, and user-friendly all in one OS, Mac OS X is a reasonable Jack-of-all-trades.

Triple-booting is primarily a niche interest for hardcore hobbyists and multiplatform software developers. Webdevs like me can get by pretty well with Mac VirtualPC when away from the office. On a PowerPC, it's slow as molasses in January, but it's plenty good for LAMP dev and quick browser checks in a variety of Windows and Linux versions (all running simultaneously, of course). Wouldn't suggest doing serious ASP.NET dev on it, though-- but the occasional C# tweak is quite doable. I've dropped more than a few jaws by showing up for some on-site ASP.NET maintenance armed only with a PowerBook and WebMatrix under VPC. Now, (sniff, sniff) nobody's impressed with my mad skilz. Maybe if I port Dreamweaver to my WiFi smartphone...

Re:MacIntel - CHRP?

[NutscrapeSucks]

Well, as it says in the link, it wasn't really GA, you had to get it through special channels.

OS/2-PPC was interesting in that it was a total rewrite of the OS/2 kernel to put it on the same level as NT. However by 1996, IBM was backing away from OS/2, so there really was no point.

Re:MacIntel - CHRP?

[mrchaotica]

I know Intel has just added virtualization support to their CPUs, but do nVidia and ATi have virtualization support in their GPUs? It sure would be nice to have full hardware 3d acceleration...

Wow I didn't see this coming...

[Xedium]

Installing multiple OSes onto a Mac? This'll be child's play soon, and it's even more trivial to install tons of operating systems onto a generic PC. I can already install Mac OSx86 (sublega), Windows, a couple flavors of Linux, FreeBSD, etc. etc. etc. on a generic computer. Mac's funny GPT is just a little obstacle.

IT Pros != IT Depts

[mzieg]

your IT department...the majority of IT pros

Like I'd believe anything from an article which equated "IT Pros" with an "IT department." IT pros create things. IT departments install and support things...typically with laughably miserable results.

IT pros try to come up with new ways of using technology to improve business efficiency and open new markets. IT departments specialize in explaining why "no you're not allowed to do that [because it would make our job an eensie bit more difficult and we might actually have to think.]" (Chip on my shoulder? You bet!)

No, the folks you find in IT departments typically aren't "Mac people", if by "Mac people" you mean people who are interested in trying something different simply for the sake of finding out whether an alterative approach might actually be better once in awhile. On the other hand, "IT pros" recognize that a heterogenous environment is a *richer* environment, because every platform has unique strengths and contributes meaningfully to the enterprise.

Re:IT Pros != IT Depts

[Anonymous Coward]

I resent that remark!!! I am an IT pro, I also work in an IT department...Where the fuck else would an IT Pro work...asshound!!!!!!!!

Re:IT Pros != IT Depts

[Anonymous Coward]

I was also gonna add, we IT PRO's dont buy extra expensive computers for people with bad attitudes(who are gonna be gone in six months), and call our work 'crap'.

As though the choice of OS was the deeper cause of obvious personal problems, lol.

But you said it much better than me.

This might be a silly question, but...

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

...why might one need to triple-boot three OS's?

I'm not trying to flame or anything, but it seems like you can get pretty much anything you want out of simply dual-booting OSX and Windows without throwing Linux or BSD into the batch.

Re:This might be a silly question, but...

[teslar]

I suppose it makes sense for linux/ *BSD fanboys who absolutely swear by their distribution, but need Windows for gaming and are considering giving OSX a shot. Or maybe they just need Windows for gaming and OSX for Photoshop or Garageband, but will do anything else under linux.

Also, I suppose a lot of *nix programs which haven't been specifically ported to OSX will be easier to compile/install and run under a pure linux/BSD system.

Thirdly, if you're normally a linux user, but nicked the Windows version of Mathematica and the OSX version of Photoshop from your Uni/workplace, you'll also need the 3 OSes :)

Re:This might be a silly question, but...

[teslar]

Oh, and cross-platform developpers will naturally be happy. One machine, 3 systems.

Re:This might be a silly question, but...

[WhiteWolf666]

I do this.... why? Honestly?

I prefer KDE to Aqua. I prefer Linux to Darwin. I know Linux. I know my way around Linux. Also, there are way more packages out there for APT4RPM (on SuSE) than Fink. Plus, X11 apps on OS X don't have the right look-n-feel, while they do on KDE.

I use OS X for the Adobe apps, Macromedia stuff, and final cut. I use Linux for everything else.

Re:This might be a silly question, but...

[Nasarius]

Some people (*raises hand*) aren't big fans of either OS X or Windows, but want/need some apps on both. I'm much more productive and happy in KDE than in either MacOS or Windows. I'm really considering buying a new Mac, using Linux or FreeBSD for my serious work, MacOS for GarageBand and other stuff, and Windows for development and maybe games. It's a dream come true.

My only concern is that, last I heard, there are still no AirPort Express drivers for Linux/BSD, due to legal threats from Broadcom.

Re:This might be a silly question, but...

[mederjo]

Well, I'm a cross platform developer ( OS X and Windows ) and I'd far rather have the separate machines. Dual booting for development is a pain, I still have to do it sometimes for OS 9/OS X for one of our products. When we start Linux development I'm going to buy another machine just for Linux instead of dual booting either my PC or Intel iMac ( or one of my PPC macs for that matter, I guess ). For sure it costs a bit more but the convenience is well worth it in the long run. Being able to run things side by side is a big help. Even if you only have one monitor you can use VNC and/or RDC to interact with all your platforms at the same time. Of course I'm paid for my development work, but I can see your point for hobbyists etc.

Regards,

Jo Meder

Re:This might be a silly question, but...

[bean123456789]

As a cross platform developer I would way rather have one machine with VM's but as a second choice I would rather have completly separate machines. I will NEVER dual (or more) boot. There is no reason in this day and age to have to reboot just to load a different OS.

Re:This might be a silly question, but...

[threat_or_menace]

When I started doing this with the various cracked OSX releases last year, it was primarily Because It Was There. Once I got it working, I was interested that things like MSoffice for Mac could install on teh platform, and that it was relatively speedy (for a two year old i845 based notebook, it was blazing, really.) For work I use win2k or winxp primarily, and linux where needed. Since I was doing all this on a laptop I use for work, I needed access to (at least) windows and win and lin. It works. I borked it bad when I tried upgrading to X.4.6, I think it was, and fat32 is a terrible thing to let OSX near in my experience - I lost a LOT of data to the Mac disk tool utility. Right now I'm far more interested in virtualization - cute as it is, the whole 'and-then-you-reboot-to-do-such-and-such" is stupid. And I can sell my boss on being interested in virtualization as a business thing; we're moving that into production soon. I cannot sell anyone on triple booting as useful, though my girlfriend likes to brag that I sorted it out when she's trying to get me geekwork in the town she lives in. By contrast, vmware's a clean build, a simple install and it fookin' works. No reboot needed. And although some here are excited about how standard the Mac platform is, well, the VMWare platform can easily be standardized, too : )

The real answer ...

[Midnight Thunder]

The real answer is because you can. Remember some stuff is not because you need to, but because you want to show it can be done.

Let other people work out why the need to.

Re:USA Today: Boot Camp will start exodus to Windo

[chowhound]

Ah, USA Today, that bastion of journalistic excellence.

Re:... but does it run OS/2? - Yes, and much more

[Anonymous Coward]

Not talking about natively booting, but via virtualization, it can run almost anything: http://www.parallels.com/en/products/guest_os/ And that's just the "officially supported" OSes. Yes, yes, old hat to people running Windows or Linux on x86 hardware, but now on a platform with Mac OS X as well.

"Get it Working"

[BoRegardless]

For life to get easier, we get OUR tools RIGHT for the job and "Get it Working", meaning efficiently.

Lots of different work is out there for different people.

For me, Boot Camp simply means efficient work with one fewer laptops being paid for, maintained & carried around, while still being able to run at virtually native hardware speed...no more, no less.

End of Subject.

Re:"Get it Working"

[Old Thrashbarg]

"Boot Camp simply means... being able to run at virtually native hardware speed..." Virtually? Nothing virtual about it - you boot Windows on a Mactel and you're running at full hardware speed.

Re:"Get it Working"

[Brandybuck]

For me, Boot Camp simply means efficient work with one fewer laptops being paid for, maintained & carried around, while still being able to run at virtually native hardware speed...no more, no less.

That explains dual booting Windows. But it doesn't explain triplebooting, since OSX is already a Unix system with all the trimmings. You did say "efficient work," and so I assume this isn't for play. I'm racking my brain but I can't see the reason for a work laptop to be multiboooting more than one Unix system.

A desktop I can see. Playing around with it on a laptop I can see. But expecting your work to be more "efficient" because of it I cannot.

EFI

[m0RpHeus]

While booting Linux using this method is good, it's still just a hack. A cleaner solution would be booting Linux using EFI on Intel Macs (and probably PCs using EFI in the future). We'll just have to wait until elilo's x86 port is finished.

Re:EFI

[WhiteWolf666]

It's finished, and it still works post-bootcamp-csm. I haven't tried the latest FGLRX with it, though.

Use rEFIt->elilo, and pay some attention when you build the kernel. It does work.

AFAIK, the primary limitation is not elilo; it's the kernel's EFI support. While it supports a reference implementation, there are enough hacks in Apple's version that some bugfixes/minor workarounds are necessary.

very nice

[Tom]

This is an excellent step. Now if only someone can get the overcomplication down a little, maybe so that Linux boots directly from EFI and I don't have to choose "windos" first each time I actually want to boot Linux - that's just torture, isn't it?

only on apple machine.

[Truekaiser]

would somthing as trivial as finding out how to triple boot the machine become news..

Developers/ISVs?

[BeanThere]

It sounds ideal for cross-platform application development --- you only need one machine, and just need to reboot when porting/compiling to your 'non-primary' platforms. Combine with a decent cross-platform API like wxWidgets for best results. Make it a MacBook and you're portable too, and with all three platforms available to give product demos depending on who you're selling to.

HW not better, HW+SW better, that colors percept.

[AHumbleOpinion]

With Apple now shipping x86 computers people are starting to realize that yea Apple hardware really is higher than average PC quality.

Actually that is a misperception due to the fact that Apple hardware + Apple software has fewer problems. With a limitted number of video, audio, ethernet, etc chipsets to support it is far easier to offer a more reliable system. The overall reliability colors the perception of the hardware. When you pop open a Dell you find a rather well designed and assembled system, comparable to what I find inside Mac towers. I've seen/owned enough Apple lemons over the years, seen/had enough bad components in Macs, and see Apple currently shipping some poorly designed but stylish components right now. Would I hesitate to buy yet another Mac? Nope. Neither would I hesitate to buy yet another Dell. Now a local whitebox PC, I'll pass, I would rather by best-of-breed components myself and do a homebuilt system. I wouldn't really save money or get better quality, but I would have a little fun and have made absolutely no compromises with respect to components.

If you would like to say Apple hardware is more stylish then I would agree.

Developers, developers, developes :)

[AHumbleOpinion]

I'm a linux noob, but i'm not clear why you'd WANT to boot Linux in this case, other than maybe if you are a multi-OS admin.

Not admins, you can admin Linux boxes from BSD or Windows systems. Balmer offers the non because-it-is-there answer: developers, developers, developers. The Linux and BSD APIs differ enough that you really need to build and test your software on both platforms on a pretty regular basis. This is less of a problem on more traditional BSD systems since Linux emulation is generally offered during installation. I'm pretty sure Linux emulation is not a standard feature of Mac OS X or part of the developer tools installation. Someone else will have to comment on how easy it would be to add yourself.

Bad day for Linux gamers

[Anonymous Coward]

This sucks. Now all of those Linux game developers will never port their games over to OS X. Instead, they'll just say, "Even though there is such high demand, we don't need to port Tux Racer to OS X. Just install Linux on your Mac." Son of a whore!

Re:Bad day for Linux gamers

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, not really. I doubt they'd get away with that. Look at what happened with all the companies that tried to say "No, we won't upgrade to OS X, you just have to run in Classic mode."

Re:USA Today: Boot Camp will start exodus to Windo

[forkazoo]

From the article: "Further, your IT department now has to support two operating systems, which -- given that the majority of IT pros aren't Mac people -- means hiring or training. But let's say you're blessed with a staff that already knows both. You're still faced with two OSs, two sets of problems, and double the headache. Oh, joy..."

Just so we are clear, my IT departmnent supports whatever the fuck I say it supports. Apple releasing some new software doesn't mean I "now have to" support it.

Not that this is a big deal... I have provided at least limited support for things like logging into our Windows Terminal Server for Linux, Irix, Mac OS X, Windows. We also have Novell servers. Seriously, are there "IT Pros" who really only know and deal with a single platform? They probably make more money than me, too. :(

Cardreader???

[ProfessionalCookie]

Do people still commonly use card readers? Maybe if you're switching cards out all the time (eg pro photographer) but all my friends have 512MB-1GB cards that we just dump over USB or WiFi.

partitionless Linux?

[blindseer]

I remember a few years ago where just about every Linux distro supported booting from a drive file. Sadly that feature seems MIA these days. I was thinking that such a feature may be useful with Boot Camp to allow each Linux "partition" to exist in its own file on either the FAT/NTFS or HFS+/UFS partition.

I've been hoping to see a Linux distro that supported booting from a drive image file for PPC. It would help in convincing some people to try out Linux on their Macs, some of which still run Mac OS 9.

Apple: "What have we done!!"

[suv4x4]

Everybody is talking how having Windows on Mac will make Wintel users "switch".

However what I see in the last month is so far the opposite: Mac users trying to cram Vista, XP, 98, Linux, BSD on their machines.

If this trend is to show what the future holds, Apple might in the end be sorry about what they've done to their business.

Re:Apple: "What have we done!!"

[Anonymous Coward]

> Everybody is talking how having Windows on Mac will make Wintel users "switch".
> However what I see in the last month is so far the opposite: Mac users trying to cram Vista, XP, 98, Linux, BSD on their machines.

You've seen Mac users trying to cram VISTA onto their machines in the last month?? Give me some of what you're smoking!

Re:Apple: "What have we done!!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody is talking how having Windows on Mac will make Wintel users "switch".

Um, well, buy an Intel box from $$ Apple $$ without really switching because you're not leaving Windblows behind.

However what I see in the last month is so far the opposite: Mac users trying to cram Vista, XP, 98, Linux, BSD on their machines.

Well, if that's the case, these are the users who haven't been running VirtualPC or SoftWindows for a decade, but bought a Macintel within the past month or two with the intent of installing XP or Linux on it someday, so we can hardly assume they're all intravenious Mac addicts. If I had to replace my Mac today, I'd get a PowerPC, because right now, some of the critical software I need is a little buggy under Rosetta. Next year, though... yes, next year...

If this trend is to show what the future holds, Apple might in the end be sorry about what they've done to their business.

If Apple can convince 8% of PC buyers that it's okay to buy a Mac to run Windows, they will have doubled their hardware market share!!! If they convince another 8% the next year, Apple passes Dell as the largest supplier of computer hardware. So they hurt their software sales? Think about it. Apple ports iLife to Vista and moves built-in productivity tools like iCal, Address Book, iChat and Mail into the scrawny iWork suite, also ported to run in Vista. Because the iApps are pre-installed on new Apples, and Apples have become 24% of the market, everyone else wants to pay Apple $79 for iLife and $79 for iWork, $158 a seat. Windows users are already paying Apple an average of $80 a year for iTunes tunes. And because Devs want to make our stuff work with the popular stuff, we by Apple Xcode for Vista at 199 bucks a pop, because it supports the open standards better than MS junk. Steve Jobs starts making Bill Gates money.

Apple, like Sun, has been a hardware company that entices people to fork over megabucks for hardware because its proprietary software (OS) has certain niche advantages. Hasn't been working very well for Sun lately, but if ol' Dvorak is right, Apple's grand strategy might be to bundle Windows with some Macs. According to Dvorak, if most Mac users eventually jump ship to Windows, that's just more profit for Apple--- they dump Mac OS X to the Open Source community and cut a major expense in the process.

Under the Dvorak scenario, Free OS X becomes the optional install on Macs, and starts competing with "free" systems like Linux. Any PC maker wanting to bundle OS X will supply its own drivers and support, so Apple won't have to, but can still have an advantage in the training and certification markets. As Apple's hardware eats up the Windows market while Free OS X takes over the rest of the industry. Steve Jobs becomes the richest man in the world. Interesting thought, and not so easy to write off when you follow the money. However, the egos involved may not let it happen. If Jobs leaves for Disney, Dvorak starts looking a lot less insane.

Now my turn to look insane. Assuming Dvorak is right, what happens if Apple's plan works and Macs have the Windows market and the free OS market sewn up? MS stock tanks. Apple bails out MS by buying a division or two, maybe the whole company. Apple returns to Mac OS X and Windows becomes just another "Classic mode" through VPC. Our grandchildren growing up thinking Windows are just those clear glass things behind the curtains, and they don't believe us when we tell them that Apples really were fruit before they were machines.

Re:Apple: "What have we done!!"

[drsmithy]

However what I see in the last month is so far the opposite: Mac users trying to cram Vista, XP, 98, Linux, BSD on their machines.

These people aren't even close to a typical user.

If this trend is to show what the future holds, Apple might in the end be sorry about what they've done to their business.

Their business is selling Macs. Someone running Windows on a Mac has no negative impact on this at all, as Apple has still sold them a Mac.

MacIntel without OSX?

[delire]

I'd be interested to know if it is possible to buy a MacIntel without OSX preinstalled.

OSX doesn't fulfill my needs as a primary OS, but the CoreDuo Mac Mini has appeal as a low temperature SFF Linux box. If Apple do reach even half the market share they once had, I wonder if we'll be seeing an increase in demand for the hardware they distribute without the OS tax? Given that Asustek and Quanta make all of the Apple hardware, my next best bet is that Asus simply put out a blank SFF box with the same spec as the Mini.

Re:MacIntel without OSX?

[Ash-Fox]

I believe OSX comes free when you buy a Mac, only upgrades cost.

Re:MacIntel without OSX?

[Anonymous Coward]

OSX doesn't fulfill my needs as a primary OS

And linux does? What are you doing, besides trolling?

Re:"Get it Working" Virtually Correct

[BoRegardless]

Smiling: I was, of course, using "virtually" in the non-computer sense. Interesting how words twist as they move from one arena to another in life.

Re:"Get it Working" Virtualization

[BoRegardless]

I can also see using Virtualization installs of Windows, when some dastardly web programmer makes a web page simply not function except with IE, and I want to flip to Windows for a minute or two.

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

All of your OS are belong to us...

Re:"Get it Working" Virtually Correct

[Old Thrashbarg]

I know. In the non-computer sense 'virtually' means 'almost'. My point is Windows on Mactel runs native, not 'almost native'.

Re:... but does it run OS/2? - Yes, and much more

[mycall]

how does parallel fair against vmware or an IntelVT/AMD-IOVT hypervisor?

Can someone help?

[anethema]

I just need something clarified...

I thought the whole point of this stuff..why it was so exciting, was the crazy new virtualization stuff, allowing you to run windows along side mac, perhaps in a window in osx, at native speed.

Read up a bit on it and it seems its just windows booting on intel hardware because of some EFI update that ticked off the 'emu bios' option.

There is none of the fancy virtualization going on?

Re:Can someone help?

[Phroggy]

There is none of the fancy virtualization going on?

Correct, there is none of the fancy virtualization going on. However, once Windows and Linux work well natively on Mac hardware, it will be much easier to get virtualization working on the same hardware.

What's happening now is for geeks, not for masses.

Re:Can someone help?

[anethema]

Cool thanks.

switched to Mac so I wouldn't have to dual boot

[Anonymous Coward]

The main reason I switched to a Mac was that I wouldn't have to dual-boot. Before I had a Dell laptop, dual-booting Linux and Windows, but I got a powerbook (and now macbook) so that I would have both unix for work and just what I am used to, but also a machine that had a supported sound, accelerated video, sleep, wireless, and so on. (I am sure Linux has improved its laptop support in the 4 years since I switched, though I very much doubt it's as easy and smoothe as OS X. I do use Linux daily, by the way.)

I really don't understand this...

[MickDownUnder]

Why people are so hot for apple and OS X when it's clearly quite restrictive. It's never even occurred to me that I couldn't have as many boots with as many different OS's as my heart desires using either windows or linux. As a Linux user writing to ntfs hasn't seemed like such an undoable thing.

So whats the big deal ? Why is this cause for celebration ?

I mean this is the whole reason why Apple failed in the first place, their totally unrealistic expectations that they could market their restrictive computing model at an exorbitant price. I really don't get why people are now lapping this stuff up.

Most Mac users I meet these days come across to me that their choice of computer is more about fashion than it is about function.

Re:I really don't understand this...

[MustardMan]

Ya know, I was a linux fanboy once. I was proud of how 'leet my platform of choice was. I rejoiced in my freedom to do anything and everything I wanted to do. And I spent so much time fucking around trying to make shit work, that I never actually used my computer. A year or so ago, my research group provided me with an ibook, so I could have a reliable laptop running an OS with a unix command line available, and where the OS had good user support in case something went wrong at a conference somewhere. I haven't had a need to use linux since. OS X gives me all the freedom I ever used when I was in linux, and has a much slicker, more well thought out design. I spend my time on my computer doing work, not tweaking configuration files.

As far as your whole "apple is so restrictive" line of crap - it's an exaggeration. You've been able to dual boot linux on apple hardware for a long time. You couldn't boot windows because the hardware wasn't right. Then, apple came out with new machines, and didn't use the legacy BIOS - not because they were trying to restrict people, but because it's fucking decades old technology and needs to die. However, as a courtesy to users, they released bootcamp so the intel machines would be able to boot legacy OSes.

Apple failed because their management sucked, and the pre-os-X operating system was slow, shitty, and lacked decent multitasking. A once-revolutionary OS became stagnant and bloated, and bad business decisions licensing the OS to clone makers nearly drove them out of business. Then, they did the unthinkable, scrapped the piece of shit os, and built a new one baseed on a solid foundation with its roots in UNIX. But, they did something NO ONE was able to do before them - build something on top of UNIX that has a well designed, efficient, polished user interface that is as useful to a scientist as it is to grandma.

Before you judge, sit down and use an OS X machine sometime. I mean, really use it. Spend a month using nothing but the apple - find all the replacements for the programs you use, install X windows so you can run those linux programs you can't live without, and see how fast you start trying to move away from those programs, because you find how much BETTER the UI of the apple machine is. I have not met ONE PERSON who's used an OS X computer for any significant amount of time without coming to the conclusion that it's worlds better than what they were using before. Perhaps you don't understand it because your prejudice keeps you from being open minded enough to give it a chance. I was like you once, a closed minded linux zealot who hated apple machines because they are for style-over-substance art types and not for real men like me. Really use the computer, and I bet you might change your tone.

I don't give a shit about steve jobs or how popular the mac is - Apple makes damn good computers, and they help me do my work better. THAT'S why I'm an apple fan, because at the moment, it is the best damn computer on the market. If tomorrow someone else makes a better computer, I very well might switch - but for the time being, nothing comes close.

Re:I really don't understand this...

[Anonymous Coward]

roots in UNIX? my ass.. they ripped freebsd for the bits they need

Re:I really don't understand this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry - it's late. Exactly what did they rip from your ass?

Re:I really don't understand this...

[MickDownUnder]

I've used OS-X many times, fixing problems and showing my dad how to do things. Every time I go to my parents place my father bitches on about his new mac.... he's been using macs for 20 years and until OS-X came along he loved them. The interface is slick for UNIX.... My father however seems to complain alot less about his windows laptop than he does about his mac now. I can see why, on the whole I would say OS X apps are counter intuitive compared to windows or old mac apps, but its definitely a step forward for unix.

Re:I really don't understand this...

[MustardMan]

I'm pretty sure you're the ONLY person I've ever heard say that mac os x apps are LESS intuitive than classic ones. I gotta wonder where you got that crack, and how much you paid for it, 'cause that must be some good shit.

clamshell mode + bluetooth + salling clicker

[Scudsucker]

You've been able to do that for years with a bluetooth capable Powerbook and a bluetooth pda or phone that can run Salling Clicker so you can use it as a remote. Powerbooks can run with the lid closed, and if you had a bluetooth headset you wouldn't have to worry about cords, either. Dunno about heat and battery life issues, though. My aunt's Crapaq Presario would get so hot in the bag that I was tempted to try cooking brownies in it once.

Re:clamshell mode + bluetooth + salling clicker

[crossmr]

While that may work its not at all what I'm talking about. In that scenario you're running the laptop fully on. It will generate a lot more heat than a unit thats designed just to power the hard drive and play songs from a certain directory. Plus you're involving another device. If I'm going to involve another device, why not just have an mp3 player?
Properly set up we shouldn't have a heat issue as it wouldn't engage much, and the battery should last much longer.

Solaris boots as well

[soyle]

Mac OS X, Windows, Linux and Solaris as well.

Re:It can, but its buggy.

[vertinox]

They helpfully suggest using it, as mac os x cannot natively write to an ntfs partition

I had to get some data off some old NTFS win2k hard drives laying around and all I had was my USB drive case and a mac. I found a source forg project that did the trick: http://sourceforge.net/projects/ntfsosx/

Of course this was on my 10.2 computer a while back and according to the site it doesn't support newer 10.4 versions of OS X, but perhaps they can rememdy that someday.