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."
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.
I'd love to help you out -- which way did you come in?
WoW Mod:Speed up World of Warcraft Load Times!
Like Ebaums World? You'll love Shizzville
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.
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.
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
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.
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.
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.
gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70
That latin phrase you keep saying - I do not think it means what you think it means.
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.
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.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
If by open you mean, "Dammit! They found out how to reverse engineer the BIOS," then no, they're not similiar.
I don't get it.
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.