Boot Camp Finally Supports Windows 7 On Macs

Dave Knott writes "After some delay Apple has updated Boot Camp to support Windows 7 on Macintosh computers. They have also provided an upgrade utility that facilitates transition to Windows 7 for Mac owners who have existing Vista installations. The new version of Boot Camp requires OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard)."

Comments

In other words

[elsJake]

You won't buy their new operating system untuil you get ours.

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummmmmm..what are you talking about? Take a look at this

Re:In other words

[elsJake]

Did i miss something ? Is it really redundant to bring attention to the fact that software required to boot into another operating system shouldn't depend on weather or not you have the latest version of one of the operating systems ?

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, fucking asshole.

Re:In other words

[Bruha]

I agree, however Apple has a long history of breaking compatiblity to force you to upgrade to a new product.

Aperature 1 owners upon upgrading to 10.6 find they can not load Aperature until they pay to upgrade to version 2. Happened to Me.

2007 Mac Pro owners find they have to buy a new Mac Pro to get new graphics cards (what's the point of a Mac Pro if you can not upgrade the internals) guess hard drives suffice.

I'm sure the list is longer than that as well. Also iPod 2g owners will soon probably find themselves forced to upgrade to get new apps when a SDK 5 drops or some similar excuse.

In 2004 we got ipods, then mac mini,s then I got a Mac Pro in 07, worked for a good bit, then the BS started, and were back to using Windows 7. It's was just a phase I keep telling myself.

Re:In other words

[symbolset]

Apple pushes the edge of innovation, but keeps control of their platforms to ensure a good user experience. This is good in that the edge keeps moving when WinTel would prefer it remain static. It's bad in that we're replacing one dependency for another if we choose this path.

Fortunately for the most part Google can shadow Apple and deliver the innovation without the leash - if you let them track you. And the Google tech is built on Linux so if you want to shake the tracking you can do that too.

So progress moves forward which is a good thing. Without Apple, Google and Linux geeks we'd have less of this bar-moving and more of the one-step-forward, two-steps back wormfest that is Windows.

Re:In other words

[node 3]

I agree, however Apple has a long history of breaking compatiblity to force you to upgrade to a new product.

Not quite. Apple has a long history of focusing on their current products. Windows 7 drivers are part of Snow Leopard because Snow Leopard is the current OS.

You're partially right in that Apple does want people to upgrade to the current OS. But if their motives were as underhanded as you imply, it seems a bit odd they'd price Snow Leopard at $29.

Re:In other words

[TiberiusMonkey]

RIIIIIIGHT, because the problem with compatibility just does away when you upgrade Windows.

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree about the Mac Pro and iMac's as well. I never understood the point of owning a desktop that you couldn't upgrade the internal parts.

I will say I'm an extremely happy MacBookPro owner and have upgrade the RAM and the HD (twice) since buying it. With a laptop there's not nearly the expectation of being able to upgrade parts though. Love this laptop though and don't know what I'd do without it.

For Aperture I can't really relate, but that doesn't surprise me. Apple's focus has always been on controlling the entire user experience, which does lead to some very nice perks as well as the ability to dictate advances in technology. They did a really good job on the Intel switch with Rosetta and the universal binaries too.

Leaving some things behind as they move the entire platform forward is going to happen though. As much as it can be a griping point, it's exactly what allows Apple to offer the 100% opposite experience of Microsoft. Microsoft is forced to support horrible legacy software which has largely prevented them from being able to make real strides with the OS over the years. Windows 7 seems to be a major step forward but it's backwards compatibility is certainly something that has held them back for a long, long time.

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

Now don't be like that, I sort of agree, I've had a similar experience with Windows 7.

My gf called last week while I was away for work and told me email and internet on her Win 7 desktop PC had stopped working completely. I tried the usual "check that the leads are plugged in" diagnostics and worked out that while the physical connection was ok, no bits were getting in or out. I got her to call her ISP and troubleshoot it with them.
They couldn't work it out either, though they tried a whole heap of things, including replacing the NIC, and still couldn't get it to connect. They told her to reinstall Windows and all of her software, close to a full day's work by the time all the drivers have been tracked down and licenses sorted. She wasn't brave enough to do that, so she decided to wait for me to come home. She's been copying her work onto a USB drive and taking it to the library each day to email it.

I've got the thing next to me now, trying to diagnose the fault. I've looked in the system logs, I've used known good cables, I've shut down all the antivirus, antispyware and firewall software, checked everything that might be stopping the packets going through the NIC. I've plugged in a USB wireless card with the same result. I've even booted with an Ubuntu live CD and it worked fine with ALL of the network cards, so it's not a hardware problem. Windows 7's network stack simply won't talk to the outside world.

So now I'm at the familiar old backup, find all of the application CDs, find all of the drivers, reformat, reinstall, etc, etc etc.

Then pray to the gods that it doesn't do the same thing again.

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

Did i miss something ? Is it really redundant to bring attention to the fact that software required to boot into another operating system shouldn't depend on weather or not you have the latest version of one of the operating systems?

Boot Camp is not required to multiboot a Mac, it just makes it pointy-clicky easy. The OS X partition can be non-destructively and easily resized via the CLI, and you can either hold down the Option key (aka Alt key) for a boot menu or install rEFIt for a nice, graphical boot menu.

Re:In other words

[biryokumaru]

Apple's focus has always been on controlling the entire user experience, which does lead to some very nice perks as well as the ability to dictate advances in technology.

Well, it is true that Mussolini did get the trains to run on time. Fair enough.

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

it seems a bit odd they'd price Snow Leopard at $29.

Since when has apple priced anything low? They have a long history of taking off the shelf components and over charging for them.

The price is $29 because they realized they couldn't price it higher. Nobody would buy it.

But hey don't let facts get in the way..

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, however Apple has a long history of breaking compatiblity to force you to upgrade to a new product.

Aperature 1 owners upon upgrading to 10.6 find they can not load Aperature until they pay to upgrade to version 2. Happened to Me.

2007 Mac Pro owners find they have to buy a new Mac Pro to get new graphics cards (what's the point of a Mac Pro if you can not upgrade the internals) guess hard drives suffice.

I'm sure the list is longer than that as well. Also iPod 2g owners will soon probably find themselves forced to upgrade to get new apps when a SDK 5 drops or some similar excuse.

In 2004 we got ipods, then mac mini,s then I got a Mac Pro in 07, worked for a good bit, then the BS started, and were back to using Windows 7. It's was just a phase I keep telling myself.

You know what is worse than this right? The new 09 models have been documented as spiking in heat generation when doing specific audio tasks. They also limited the transfer rate on the HDD bays. Oh and they made it much harder to use 3rd party RAID cards.. The 09 year screwed up all that was good about the 08 Mac Pro.

Re:In other words

[Kolie]

So because you can't figure out wtf is wrong it must be a faulty network stack, right. I'm calling user error. My network stack is working so you must be wrong.

Re:In other words

[ArundelCastle]

I agree, however Apple has a long history of breaking compatiblity to force you to upgrade to a new product.

You are quite correct, however I would argue that many of Windows biggest shortcomings over the years relate to the push for backwards compatibility. DOS mode, the registry, DLLs... Supporting poor software begets poor software. It even carried over into Microsoft Games division where the 100 member friend-list restriction is retained to this day to support Halo 2 players, years after an original Xbox can no longer be purchased. Somebody hard-coded, because who could imagine a need for more? 640k, etc. etc. They refuse to cut the cord because those are still paying customers.

In principle, Microsoft is willing to sacrifice the satisfaction of new customers to maintain status quo momentum and revenue, and Apple is willing to sacrifice old customers to pull in new adopters with a better made product. Given their respective market shares ten years ago compared to now, I can't blame either of them. They are successful in different ways.

Re:In other words

[Kitkoan]

You're partially right in that Apple does want people to upgrade to the current OS. But if their motives were as underhanded as you imply, it seems a bit odd they'd price Snow Leopard at $29.

Forces any 4+ year older Mac out of the way since they only started making Intel chips (required for 10.6, no PowerPC chips) in 2006. And thats if you didn't buy an older Mac off the shelf. While the $29 isn't much, it's still a forced upgrade

Re:In other words

[kimvette]

When it comes to mobile phones, tablets, and the like Apple may be at the bleeding edge of innovation. However, when it comes to computer hardware (in terms of processors, video chipsets, hard drive capacities, and the like) they are on the trailing edge of obsolescence.

Re:In other words

[kimvette]

I agree about the Mac Pro and iMac's as well. I never understood the point of owning a desktop that you couldn't upgrade the internal parts.

Mac mini: it is small, reduces clutter, and quiet. The tradeoff is older-generation processors, limited RAM, and limited hard drive space. It's also a pain in the butt to service without marring the case. Upgrade options (video, processor, etc) are practically nil.

iMac: It provides a large monitor without the rat's nest of cables you get with most tower PC/workstation designs. Tradeoff: expansion is primarily through USB and firewire, they are a pain in the butt to service, and good luck upgrading the video card.

There are pros and cons. The question is: which is the priority? We're changing some of our workstations to Mac Minis and iMacs - they offer decent performance for the size and reduce clutter. I'm sticking with PCs since I personally need expandability, but pick Hackintosh-compatible hardware. I am in need of a new notebook, but am not going Apple because my primary OS is Linux, and dealing with the "virtual" second mouse button and absent third mouse button is a PITA. The stupid one-button trackpad on the Macbook Pro is the deal killer for me, followed closely by the lousy 1440x900 resolution. Where is 1920x(1080|1200)? Also, where is the internal RAID option? Asus, Lenovo, Dell, and Sager all offer WUXGA options with internal RAID - with some of the notebook solutions costing less than a base 15" Macbook Pro.

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice trolling there.

But if you read the guy's post he says that he, his gf, and the ISP all tried to get it working and that in spite of all the efforts, Windows 7 wouldn't work.

The network stack may be fine, but if ordinary users can't diagnose problems, even with help from the ISP's network professionals, what choice do they have apart from reformat and reinstall?

Re:In other words

[node 3]

You're partially right in that Apple does want people to upgrade to the current OS. But if their motives were as underhanded as you imply, it seems a bit odd they'd price Snow Leopard at $29.

Forces any 4+ year older Mac out of the way since they only started making Intel chips (required for 10.6, no PowerPC chips) in 2006. And thats if you didn't buy an older Mac off the shelf. While the $29 isn't much, it's still a forced upgrade

No one is forced to buy Snow Leopard. Boot Camp with XP and Vista drivers is a feature of Leopard. Windows 7 compatible Boot Camp is a feature of Snow Leopard.

Regardless, Leopard still runs just fine. But like every OS upgrade, if you want the new features, you need the new system.

I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding the older Macs, as they can't run Windows 7 anyway.

Re:In other words

[MemoryDragon]

On the pc side of things that happens at least on OS level, usually it is the drivers which become an issue once a new OS version comes out. There was a shitload of people who could not decently upgrade to vista because they did not get any new drivers.
As for the aperture thing, there is also on the windows side the problem once a new OS version comes out you in many cases have to upgrade, I think the percentages of programs which needs upgrade is more on OSX though because windows try to keep backwards compatibility, but that causes serious bloat which OSX thankfully does not drag along.
I have yet to think of a single program on my machine which did not survive the 10.5 or 10.5 upgrade, guess I was lucky. (not an aperture user)

Re:In other words

[MemoryDragon]

I forgot to mention, my experience is that old machines usually are supported by Apple within a 4-5 years timeframe. The so normally OS upgrades work 4 years min sometimes over 8 years although the last 2-3 years might be hackish like it used to be with the old G2 grey boxes.
Apple tends to integrate too much and use that one for incentive to upgrade (not being able to update the graphics card can be a break point for many, but you should have known that upfront when buying the machine). In case of notebooks it does not matter, portable machines usually never survive more than 3-4 years anyway.

Re:In other words

[Neoprofin]

If you're going to say WinTel you really should say MacTel as well. At least one of those companies still makes PCs with non-Intel processors.

Re:In other words

[uglyduckling]

Is it really unreasonable for Apple to require a $30 upgrade to get support for the latest Microsoft operating system? I guess if you see a Mac as a generic PC that ought to be able to run any operating system, then maybe (although many smaller manufacturers will _never_ release Windows 7 drivers for their older hardware). However, Boot Camp is more than a boot manager, and it's designed to get the two systems running alongside each other with the minimum hassle. Requiring you to use the latest version of their OS to do that isn't really unreasonable at all.

Re:In other words

[wmac]

Yes, you are right that they do this for ensuring compatibility.
As an example they do not let Flash to run on iPhone, iPad etc. to ensure compatibility... compatibility with their pocket of course

Re:In other words

[DJRumpy]

Don't forget that prior to the latest iMac, both used laptop parts exclusively, and should both be treated as such for upgrade purposes. They were never designed for the end user to take them apart.

That said, the iMac makes it easy to do the memory, but not the hard drive or any of the other components. The iMac has a panel on the bottom edge of the display which can be removed to easily upgrade the ram. The panel is the same sort you see on any laptop. The hard drive on the iMac is much more difficult. You have to use suction cups to remove the glass, which exposes the innards. Fortunately you can order 1 or 2 TB 7200 RPM drives right from the factory for the iMac so it's not a big need for most people to upgrade the hard drive. Most of the pre-fall '09 iMacs used only laptop parts (2.5" HD's, slimline optical drives, mobile graphics chipsets). The latest model iMacs are now using some desktop components which is a nice change, although I still don't have the urge to crack the case. That said, I've always had plenty of space due to the large hard drive selections, and I've found the graphics hardware adequate for my needs.

The mini is easy to replace the hard drive and upgrade the memory, however they still use all laptop parts and I don't expect that to change given it's footprint. The mini is easy to upgrade, but again only the parts you can typically replace in a laptop. It doesn't mar the visible parts of case. You simply use a putty knife on the inside edge of the case. I literally had the entire thing apart in 5 minutes. About the only unnerving bit is releasing the clips that hold the case (the noise sounds like the plastic case is cracking). Mine had no scuffs or any other visible damage when I was done. The cover snapped back on firmly when I was done with no apparent damage to the fastening clips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-zGbcr1eWw
http://www.methodshop.com/gadgets/tutorials/macmini-ram/index.shtml

I just purchase the base model of Mini, and upgraded it to 4 GB for $80 bucks. The hard drive unfortunately, also uses the 2.5" form factor, so the options for larger storage are expensive (I do see that WD now has a $200 1TB 2.5", although it's only 5200 RPM). I opted for an external 3.5" 7200 RPM 1TB drive for $99 bucks and an external USB SATA enclosure for $20 bucks. It makes a good (and cheap) HTPC since it, like every Mac, includes the Headphone Jack/SPDIF Optical combo port. It has no problems with 1080p video.

I've heard of some people upgrading the CPU in these, but I'd be hesitant to do so considering their both similar to laptops when it comes to thermals. In a work environment, I would think either would be fine. For a home power user, the temptation to upgrade components would probably be contrary to the design.

In all cases, they should be considered as laptops when thinking of upgrade options (Ram, Optical Drive, and Hard Drive). I'm hoping the recent shift to desktop components in the iMac will change that, and hopefully spur Apple to make it a bit more serviceable.

Re:In other words

[linj]

When it comes to mobile phones, tablets, and the like Apple may be at the bleeding edge of innovation.

Sorry to be a bit argumentative, but I always thought Microsoft was at the "bleeding edge of innovation" in terms of tablets. Linux is really lacking, and the new iPad is, really, an eBook with 10 hours battery life and a touch screen.

Windows 7, on the other hand, has better "tablet" support than Windows Vista, which has better tablet support than Windows XP Tablet Edition -- they've definitely been improving with every iteration, and if you've ever used a Tablet PC, you can tell.

Re:In other words

[Moofie]

OK, genius, you're not going to be running Windows 7 under BootCamp on a G4 machine anyway. "Oh no! Apple came to my house and said they were going to kill my dog unless I gave them money for a new computer! WAAH!"

"forced upgrade" means that somebody forces you. They come to your house and put you under duress. That's what 'force' means.

Re:In other words

[Bruha]

You all have it wrong. Windows 7 took months to be supported by boot camp, it was not a feature of Snow Leopard.

I'd rather leave it in a cow pasture

[Anonymous Coward]

It'd wind up with less crap on it that way.

...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[flydpnkrtn]

.....just sayin'

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[LostCluster]

Yep... and also with the commercial VMWare Fusion and Parallels Desktop. They had free betas when Windows 7 was in the free beta period as well.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[tepples]

Of course, the problem with running Windows on a Mac is Microsoft's pricing structure. Boot Camp or Parallels or VMware or VirtualBox needs a retail copy of Windows. But it turns out that one can actually buy a whole PC running Windows, including a spare keyboard and mouse, for close to the price of a retail copy of Windows.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[amiga3D]

That's not by accident. That's planned that way.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[KibibyteBrain]

I doubt it. The pricing of Windows has changed very over the years. So unless they planned for PCs in the late 200x's to be around the same cost as a windows license in 1995, It is mostly just incidental.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[lukas84]

Only in the US, though.

Everywhere else, you can buy System Builder (not to be confused with OEM licenses, though many people refer to SBE as OEM) licenses. They're pretty reasonable, around 120$ for Home Premium. The license is bound to the hardware with the first installation though (legally - technically, you can still activate other machines by calling up Microsoft).

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[kjart]

Of course, the problem with running Windows on a Mac is Microsoft's pricing structure. Boot Camp or Parallels or VMware or VirtualBox needs a retail copy of Windows. But it turns out that one can actually buy a whole PC running Windows, including a spare keyboard and mouse, for close to the price of a retail copy of Windows.

I agree that the pricing of retail Windows is pretty ridiculous, and it continues to surprise me that people buy Windows that way. That being said, I don't like the fact that you have to upgrade OS X in order to get driver support for a new version of Windows. This isn't unusual in the software vendor world (i.e. buy new version to get new features) but it sure is abnormal in the hardware world, and Apple is the hardware vendor in this case. I really shouldn't have to buy your OS to get functioning drivers for your hardware in someone else's OS.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[BitZtream]

And playing games in a VM still isn't as good as native, no matter how hard they try or claim that it is. Removing 2 layers of indirection (OS X and the Hypervisor) can't hurt.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

Retail copy... llulllllll

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[the_humeister]

Are you sure about that? I bought the Windows 7 upgrade and put it on my computer. I didn't have a prior version of Windows. It still runs after all these months.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[peragrin]

why not? MSFT doesn't support modern standards in win7 32 bit edition (EFI) and every one else has to hack their systems to make windows work. Since win 7 64 bit has poor software support and MSFT is unable to do a decent 32 bit /64 bit transition. every one else has to patch and hack windows to do simple things.

Bios like the rest of 1990's computer tech(win32 active X) needs to die and quickly. however msft will support win32 and the win16 developers until at least the last half of this decade and probably beyond.

It is a sad state that msft developers will build .net applications and then use windows 95 era installers for said software. it is sadder that msft lets such things happen.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[tepples]

Running an upgrade without a valid license for the qualifying previous version might stop working after the next BSA audit. (And I'm not talking Scouts either.)

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[VGPowerlord]

however msft will support win32 and the win16 developers until at least the last half of this decade and probably beyond.

Microsoft is going to support win32 as long as Intel makes chips that are 32-bit only, like most of the Intel Atom line (used in Netbooks).

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[Darkness404]

Microsoft planned for the cost of hardware to go down. They wanted their profit margins to stay the same.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[Darkness404]

...Thats assuming you are audited from the BSA. Home users aren't.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

While I'm sure that they would all prefer that it be cheaper, I doubt VMware and company are much worried.

You definitely can get a fully functional, if not very exciting, wintel box for about the cost of a Windows licence. However, that probably won't be of too much use to your average mac user contemplating windows: The bulk of Macs sold are laptops. If you are using a laptop, you are likely carrying it around at least sometimes. Suddenly, your HP box or Asus netbook or whatever it was you purchased for the cost of the OS it runs starts to look annoying.

Even if you have a Mac desktop, you are going to run into issues: iMacs can function as monitors; but only if the input source is Displayport. With a cheap PC, you'll get VGA or DVI, which means that you'll need either another monitor, or an active converter. You'll also need another set of peripherals, and the desk space for them, or a KVM. Standard 2 or 4 port VGA/PS2/USB KVMs are cheap; but DVI/USB KVMs are kind of pricey. I haven't even dared to look at displayport KVMs. Users of Mac Pros are ever so slightly better off; particularly if they are using a third party monitor with multiple switchable inputs(ie. any Dell monitor that somebody with a $3,000 desktop would purchase); but they will run into the problem that, because they are on a Mac Pro, their windows applications would run faster in a VM than they would on a cheap PC(and since cheap PCs rarely have graphics worth anything, even the notoriously virtualization-hostile task of gaming won't work better).

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[tepples]

A business that recommends that its customers violate software licenses, such as a publisher of Windows-compatible software that recommends shady methods of acquiring a copy of Windows, might find itself the victim of a surprise butts^W audit.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[tepples]

Microsoft is going to support win32 as long as Intel makes chips that are 32-bit only

What makes you think that? I seem to remember that Intel still makes 16-bit chips, yet Microsoft discontinued MS-DOS and Windows 3.x.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[zerocool^]

Digital river will sell you a legit upgrade copy of Windows 7 for $30 if you are a student at a qualifying university. Their authentication of said is that you have a *@*.edu email address.

I bought a copy of windows 7 for my wife to go along with the new macbook pro I got her for xmas. I installed it before this update came out and found it unusable, so I backed off to a copy of windows XP that i can justify using legally because it's the key from her old laptop, which was soon to be reinstalled with Fedora. I'll probably upgrade now.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[cheekyboy]

Yep, luck mac bastards, they can buy a cheap ass low end PC for $200 or less to code for windows.

But us windows people cannot buy a $200 mac to code for the iphone.

Apple could port its iphone sdk to gcc/windows/linux quite easily.

But its not in their interest, so even if it cost them say $200,000 to do it, they wouldnt.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[tepples]

Digital river will sell you a legit upgrade copy of Windows 7 for $30 if you are a student at a qualifying university.

Pretty much every accredited university with a computer science program offers cheap copies of Windows to its students, but going back for a master's degree is even more expensive.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[joshki]

psst....

The OSX upgrade costs 29 bucks.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[node 3]

Not quite. Microsoft used the launch of Windows XP to increase the price of Windows dramatically.

Besides, when amiga3D says, "they planned it that way", he doesn't mean they planned it back then in 1995. He means they planned it that way last year when they priced Windows 7.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

But it turns out that one can actually buy a whole PC running Windows, including a spare keyboard and mouse, for close to the price of a retail copy of Windows.

Compaqs and HP systems that I remember in New York at this ~ USD $300 price point, around the price of a windows licence, aren't very useful for the tinkering / upgrading geek to add RAM and PCI devices to; they are in at compact form factor. For a normal mac user who just needs a barebones PC, I do see your point.

However, you may forget the point why we go through the 'unusual' task of actually paying for a 'license' purchased on a retail CD. Windows users doing this are just looking for a legit, unlocked release that doesn't care about your OEM brand, so you can freely use it to reinstall and troubleshot PC's.

Choosing to activate multiple installs with that single license key is a different ballgame, but you have to realize that nobody ever gets an unlocked Windows CD these days without going to the store or pirating it.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Awesome, I'll upgrade my Tiger system asap! Oh, what was that? Leopard only? $170 for Tiger users? Nice one, Apple.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

Psst.... Win7 upgrade disc costs $120.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[Latinhypercube]

No it doesn't , it runs like ASS unless it is installed as a separate OS. Running win 7 AND OSX at the same time is stupid. Win 7 64bit as a fresh install pans OSX in all the practical speed tests I have run. Shame that this support of win7 probably does not include win 7 64bit, or any older mac pro's. So you have to hack the bootloader together. Fuck u apple (the new sony).

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[biryokumaru]

Are you honestly concerned with "stealing" from Microsoft? It seems that the extra effort you expend ensuring your copy of Windows is legitimate could be put to better use in society.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[bigstrat2003]

You can buy them in the US as well. There is absolutely no reason anyone should buy a retail copy of Windows. Ever.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[zippthorne]

Newegg: $105 I'm still a little confused though as to what, exactly it is that you don't get with the system builder edition that you would get with the full retail version.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

Running an upgrade without a valid license for the qualifying previous version might stop working after the next BSA audit. (And I'm not talking Scouts either.)

Whatever happened to that story about the BSA sponsoring a software piracy merit badge? :-)

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[VGPowerlord]

Microsoft is going to support win32 as long as Intel makes chips that are 32-bit only

What makes you think that? I seem to remember that Intel still makes 16-bit chips, yet Microsoft discontinued MS-DOS and Windows 3.x.

I already answered that:

(used in Netbooks)

In other words, they're already selling versions of Windows that the Atom will run. Back in January 2009, to PC World reported "the percent [of netbooks sold with Windows] is over 90% for the last three months (November, December, January)." (Source)

Why would Microsoft drop support for these computers if they have 90% of the market?

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[MojoStan]

Newegg: $105 I'm still a little confused though as to what, exactly it is that you don't get with the system builder edition that you would get with the full retail version.

Ars Technica had a nice article explaining the differences when Vista was released: "Buying OEM versions of Windows Vista: the facts"

My summary (in order of importance):

• An OEM or "system builder" version of Windows is tied to the computer on which it is initially installed. Unlike retail versions, OEM versions cannot be transferred to another computer, even if you remove it from the first computer.
• OEM versions include either 32-bit Windows or 64-bit (not both), so you must choose before you buy. Retail versions come with both.
• OEM versions cannot be returned once opened. That makes the 32/64 bit decision important.
• No pretty box, no user manual, and no free support. Experienced computer users don't need that stuff, anyway. OEM users still get free windows updates, MS's support web site, knowledge base, and paid support options.
• OEM versions only allow clean installations. No "in place upgrades" are allowed, which no sane techie would do anyway. Windows Easy Transfer is available for those that want to easily transfer files, settings, and accounts.

To me, the only important limitation is the no-transfer limit. However, since the OEM version is roughly half the price of the full retail (not upgrade) version, I don't think it's a big deal. Also, I've read in many forums (including Slashdot) that MS will provide a new activation code for OEM versions if you say you "had to replace the motherboard" on your PC.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

I wanna see you run GTA4 or Crysis or Age of Conan "great" on your virtualbox...

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[magnusrex1280]

The reality is that the Snow Leopard version of Boot Camp worked just fine with Windows 7 before this update, both 32 and 64 bit. As you may know, the OS X disc functions as a driver disc, after you boot into Windows. Prior this update to Boot Camp, the newest drivers were for Windows Vista. Only one driver needed a little assist to get working in Win7; I had to run one of the sound drivers in Vista compatibility mode to get it working. As for "Running win 7 AND OSX at the same time is stupid," you fail to give any real arguments as to why that's the case. Mac OS X and Windows 7 each do some things better than the other. Saying one is universally better than the other just shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[MemoryDragon]

Not if you can get ahold of an oem or system builder edition ;-)

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in Europe. You can buy an OEM copy of Windows here ("bundled" with, say, a $6 USB cable, or a stick of RAM) for a *lot* less than full retail.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[HoppQ]

Ars Technica had a nice article explaining the differences when Vista was released: "Buying OEM versions of Windows Vista: the facts"

Apparently, Ars Technica is using the Fox News definition of facts... Some of these may have been true at a time (XP days, quite possibly), but are no longer (at least not on Vista).

My summary (in order of importance):

• An OEM or "system builder" version of Windows is tied to the computer on which it is initially installed. Unlike retail versions, OEM versions cannot be transferred to another computer, even if you remove it from the first computer.

This can be done, I know as I have done it myself. Didn't even need to do phone activation. There IS however a certain timeperiod after successfully activating an installation that will cause a new installation on a different computer fail to activate, requiring phone activation. It may be as long as three months.

• OEM versions include either 32-bit Windows or 64-bit (not both), so you must choose before you buy. Retail versions come with both.

Mostly false. The true part is that you can't get the other installation media in the box or by mail (or other means) from Microsoft. Of course, there are other ways to get the installation media, including borrowing a friend's official disk or simply downloading the official ISO from P2P network (yes, both are probably a bit of a grey area legally, but it works, and I doubt MS will hunt you down for it, since you'll still be using a valid license key on just one computer anyhow). Once you have the official installation media, you'll find out that your 32-bit OEM key will work just fine on a 64-bit installation and vice versa. Don't even need to be the same language version, which is nice, since finding the official ISOs in languages other than English is hard enough not to bother.

To me, the only important limitation is the no-transfer limit. However, since the OEM version is roughly half the price of the full retail (not upgrade) version, I don't think it's a big deal. Also, I've read in many forums (including Slashdot) that MS will provide a new activation code for OEM versions if you say you "had to replace the motherboard" on your PC.

Like I said above, Vista should activate through Internet just fine if your last activation wasn't very recent. My experience with XP was that I had to do phone activation, although that was an automated process on MS's part, no need to actually talk to a live person (and yes, the "motherboard had to be replaced" excuse I've heard of being used and probably should work, if you actually have to convince an actual person, but my guess is you won't have to).

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[Neoprofin]

An OEM copy of Win7 from Newegg is less than $100.

Please tell me where you can get a computer capable of running it for something near that.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[tepples]

I was under the impression that an OEM copy of Windows had to be purchased on the same invoice as a motherboard or a similarly major component of a PC.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[uglyduckling]

I've not had any problems getting my OEM copy of Windows XP installed under Parallels. I can't vouch for news OSs.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[uglyduckling]

Boot Camp is not just a boot manager, it includes tools to share files between the two installations. Those features are supported in Snow Leopard, which is a $30 upgrade from Leopard.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[uglyduckling]

You have a Tiger system on which you wish to run Windows 7? Unless it's an early Mac Pro... uh, have fun. And if you do have an early Mac Pro, why are you running it with an OS that's two generations out of date?

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[tepples]

OEM copy of Windows

Please see replies to Neoprofin's comment.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realise the 'Upgrade' CD, dosn't bother to check if you have Leopard installed. Its an 'honour' system, i'm sure apple realise the vast majority of those that upgrade to SL are Leopard users already they don't take any measures to stop piracy of the operating system

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[duffbeer703]

It has to be sold with a PC component. Most vendors provide a $3 mouse to satisfy that requirement.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[that this is not und]

But its not in their interest

Well, it's not 1992 anymore. They've gotta have some way to sell a few macs....

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

but u wouldn't want windows 7 on your ipad would you?

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

Price? How is it above $0? Did bittorrent suddenly stop working for you?

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[Relayman]

But if you want to run your PC with multiple Windows VMs, you're right back to buying the retail version. The disks that come with your cheap machine do not support setting up a virtual machine even though the license allows it.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[tepples]

Price? How is it above $0? Did bittorrent suddenly stop working for you?

Is that $0, or $150,000?

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[Golddess]

Given that GP was referring to running Win7 in a VM on OSX, I can see exactly what they mean. Maybe it's changed in the year or so since I tried, but XP was too slow for my tastes when run from within VMWare on OSX Leopard.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[HTH NE1]

Not speaking for the GP, but I do have a Mac Pro 1,1. And I'm getting quite fed up with Apple not supporting any 64-bit OS on this 64-bit machine! I can't boot Snow Leopard in 64-bit mode, XP 64-bit has never been supported, and now it looks like I can't even run Windows 7 on this machine.

On top of that, when I upgraded my internal drives to four 2 TB drives, I couldn't get it to restore my Windows XP NTFS partition. In my last attempt, not only did Disk Copy trigger a kernel panic before finishing the copy, but the system was left unbootable until I restored the drive to be a single Mac OS X partition.

So I'm not holding my breath expecting this Boot Camp update to even enable the remaining two SATA motherboard ports under Windows (so I can use my SATA Blu-ray burning drive under Windows) until I hear otherwise. I'd have switched to GRUB as a bootloader (as from what I've read it can enable those ports) if I could find a site explaining how to do so without presuming previous experience using GRUB as a bootloader on a PC.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[tehcyder]

Are you honestly concerned with "stealing" from Microsoft?

Stealing is stealing, it's no different just because you don't like the victim.

It seems that the extra effort you expend ensuring your copy of Windows is legitimate could be put to better use in society.

Well, the time and effort expended in posting anti-Microsoft comments to slashdot over the years could probably have been put to better use in society too, but so what?

I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lately I've been thinking about buying a Mac. It's not because I want to run Mac OS X; I don't. I want it just to run Windows.

Why would I spend three times as much on a Mac just to run Windows, when I could buy a Dell instead? Well, it's because I want to support Apple as best I can. I love my iPhone, and I will get an iPad as soon as I can. Apple has earned my love, and my support.

I just wish that iPhone OS ran on their desktop systems. It's the best operating system I've used in a long time.

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows.

[flydpnkrtn]

... is this a troll?

The iPhone OS is basically "Max OS X embedded" (it's based on the Darwin core of OS X)...

So basically you want just a dashboard with apps to run and no freedom to run what you want? I think the iPad will follow that model...

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you kinda answered your own question on this one. HAND.

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows.

[__aaclcg7560]

I just wish that iPhone OS ran on their desktop systems. It's the best operating system I've used in a long time.

Maybe single-application mode is what you want in Mac OS X?

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh.

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows.

[cynyr]

GP needed a tag I could see people thinking like that.

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows.

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

It is unclear to me why you would have to spend 3x as much to run Windows. I recently went Mac and I did price comparisons and found the difference to be $100 in favor of comparable Dells. Only then because they were having some kind of fire sale.

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lately I've been thinking about buying a Mac. It's not because I want to run Mac OS X; I don't. I want it just to run Windows.

Why would I spend three times as much on a Mac just to run Windows, when I could buy a Dell instead? Well, it's because I want to support Apple as best I can. I love my iPhone, and I will get an iPad as soon as I can. Apple has earned my love, and my support.

I just wish that iPhone OS ran on their desktop systems. It's the best operating system I've used in a long time.

if you love apple so much, why don't you marry it?

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Slither.

FTFY

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the myth...

AC is not comparing features but cheapest computers that run windows compared to the cheapest Mac. 3x may be about right. However, to get the same level of computer in both, the price is similar.

Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just one more way the Mac elitists (Read: apple fanboys) can say they are better than every other kind of computer user. Your still using Foxconn motherboards....

Re:Great...

[__aaclcg7560]

I'm backing up my MacBook to a file server with a Foxconn motherboard with an AMD Athlon 64 CPU that runs FreeNAS. And your point is...?

Re:Great...

[hairyfeet]

Foxconn boards are seriously cheap? Hell I switched to ECS for budget builds because even THEY were better than Foxconn. I honestly didn't know that Apple ran Foxconns, and if it isn't just BS...wow. Their profit margins must be truly insane if they are cheaping out with low rent boards like that. If I spent that kind of cash and found I was running a Foxconn board I'd be SERIOUSLY pissed.

For about 3 years the last shop I was at split our budget builds between Foxconn, Abit, and ECS. Abit boards died around 20%, the ECS actually was the best at less than 5% (with them you just have to watch the CPU because they are picky about voltages) but the Foxconns probably were closer to 45% toasty, which is why we ended up dropping the Foxconn and Abit boards and just sticking with the ECS. Between getting shafted with Foxconn boards and getting stuck with Nvidia "we'll just relabel the same chips as new ones!" easily overheated GPUs I would probably be seriously unhappy if I had gone out and spent Apple money on a machine. Wow...you would think at that price they could afford ASUS or Gigabyte.

Re:Great...

[Zencyde]

Dude, you get what you pay for. And if you pay for a Mac, you get a Mac. Try paying for an Asus.

Re:Great...

[__aaclcg7560]

A Mac is a Mac, regardless of where the motherboard came from. For FreeNAS servers, I have no problems with Foxconn motherboards. For a PC gaming machine, I like Gigabyte motherboards.

Re:Great...

[gandhi_2]

...that your still a douche.

Re:Great...

[jjoelc]

That would be the difference between fabricating the board and designing the board.

When you go buy a Foxconn board, Foxconn engineers designed the board, with the budget market in mind. They likely just took the chipset manufacturer's reference board and started cutting as many corners as they needed to and could get away with to produce a board that would compete solely on price.

When you see Foxconn imprinted on the Apple device, Apple engineers designed the board to their specs, with the specific components they felt they needed to meet their criteria. $40 retail price of the motherboard was definitely not one of Apple's goals in designing the board.

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

ASUS does in fact manufacture a portion of Apple hardware, along with Quanta.

Re:Great...

[Graff]

Foxconn boards are seriously cheap? Hell I switched to ECS for budget builds because even THEY were better than Foxconn. I honestly didn't know that Apple ran Foxconns, and if it isn't just BS...wow. Their profit margins must be truly insane if they are cheaping out with low rent boards like that. If I spent that kind of cash and found I was running a Foxconn board I'd be SERIOUSLY pissed.

Not all boards by a company are made the same, even if they are the same model. I've worked at a company that manufactured circuit boards and you'll get different buyers purchasing the same board at different prices with different levels of burn-in testing and inspection. You might have one buyer purchasing boards at cost X with almost no quality control and another purchasing the boards at a huge markup with a guarantee of 6 sigma (usually for the military or such).

You even have companies like Apple who design their own boards and just use a company like Foxconn as the fabricator. This could mean more robust circuit layout, premium, high-reliability parts, additional quality control, and so on.

Re:Great...

[hairyfeet]

If that is true, then why doesn't Foxconn sell any boards that don't suck except to Apple? No company wants to have their product stand for shit, or have their motto be "we suck!" and anyone who builds PCs for a living will tell you that gamers and other hardcore PC users will happily pay good money for quality, which is why you can have $300 ASUS and Gigabyte boards.

But I have built machines out of just about every kind of board out there, and you know what? Foxconn boards suck ass. The only boards that had a worst failure rate was Abit, and they went tits up. Hell I don't even think Foxconn sells anything at retail except bottom of the barrel cheapo shit. So how come? It just doesn't make sense when there is money to be made by selling decent parts. Hell even the bottom of the line ECS boards (one of which I'm typing this on now) seem to have much better build quality than the Foxconn.

So unless there is a separate Foxconn that hides in the Chinese hills and only makes boards for Apple without sharing any info with the rest of the company it just doesn't make sense to me. China companies are the kings of knock offs and KIRF, so if the Apple boards were great why not just slip the designs out the back doom, tweak a couple of things, and have a decent Foxconn to sell?

Re:Great...

[Graff]

If that is true, then why doesn't Foxconn sell any boards that don't suck except to Apple? No company wants to have their product stand for shit, or have their motto be "we suck!" and anyone who builds PCs for a living will tell you that gamers and other hardcore PC users will happily pay good money for quality, which is why you can have $300 ASUS and Gigabyte boards.

Believe it or not, there is often a lot more money to be made in something cheap rather than something expensive. Most people out there don't know and don't care about the motherboard in their computer, they just want it as inexpensive as possible. A company like Foxconn probably sells a ton of motherboards at a low price and it's not worth it for them to sell a smaller amount of boards at a high price.

You also have to look at where the competition is at. A lot of companies cater to the higher end of the hobbiest industry but there is a low-end market too. Foxconn fills that niche, either to people who don't know better or to people who don't mind possibly returning a bad board or two if it means they will save some cash.

I'm also willing to bet that the bulk of Foxconn's business is as an OEM supplier. The boards they sell to the hobbiest market are probably just their rejects, overruns and reworks from their OEM business. These boards can be sold cheaply because they are designed to be made inexpensively and manufactured in bulk. The high failure rate might be due to the fact that they are the ones that were marginal in QC in the first place - good enough to pass initial inspection but not really run through a thorough burn-in testing process.

As far as selling the better designed boards that are made for a major player like Apple? Don't you think that a smart company like Apple owns the designs for those boards and probably monitors the designs of the motherboards that are sold to the hobbiest industry? If Foxconn sold the boards under their own name and Apple found out then that manufacturing contract would be torn up and a lot more money would be lost than could ever be made up in hobbiest sales.

Definitely don't buy Foxconn boards for building your own computer if you've seen such a high failure rate with them but you really can't extrapolate your experience to the big computer manufacturers. They have much more choice and control over their components than a hobbiest does.

I've been running it for months....

[ducomputergeek]

I've been running Windows 7 Eval edition since august when OS 10.6 came out. Even without bootcamp, it dectected my wireless card and intel graphics on my MacBook without any problems. How is this just now news?

Re:I've been running it for months....

[Anonymous Coward]

Because now (about 2 weeks ago actually) it's officially supported. I too have been running it for about 6 months on my MBP, and about the only improvements I've seen is temp is a lot cooler with the new drivers.

Re:I've been running it for months....

[cybermancer]

I've been running Windows 7 (MSDN final) on Snow Leopard bootcamp since it came out. So not sure what this "update" adds. One problem I did have was with the mini-dvi to VGA adapter forcing it into 640x480 resolution, but that appeared to also be an issue for Vista. Hopefully they finally fixed it!

Re:I've been running it for months....

[selven]

Boot Camp can run anything. I have a Ubuntu install running alongside Mac OSX with Boot Camp, and some people even got OpenSolaris working (not much harder than Ubuntu or Windows, from what I've heard). It's more about Mac officially supporting Windows and providing all the necessary drivers.

Re:I've been running it for months....

[BemoanAndMoan]

I've been running Windows 7 Eval edition since august when OS 10.6 came out...

Yea, I installed 64-bit Windows 7 two weeks ago on my MacBook ... running serious apps and serious games (in terms of processor/support requirements) with no issues. Dual monitors with miniDVI, swapping usb keyboards/mice/external hd's in & out while running and not a single problem.

Er, thanks Apple?

Re:I've been running it for months....

[itsdapead]

I've been running Windows 7 Eval edition since august when OS 10.6 came out. [snip] How is this just now news?

Before, it worked. Now it should just work (tm). At least until you get to the bit where Windows takes over :-)

Back in the early days of Intel Macs, the beta bootcamp included essential firmware updates (e.g. the EFI BIOS legacy support stuff). Since then, however, you've just been able to slam in a Windows DVD and go, although if you're not careful you'll hose OS X in the process because Windows doesn't understand the OS X partition table.

These days, BootCamp is just the point'n'click wizard that holds your hand while you partition your hard drive to hybrid GUID/MBR and set up a dual boot system. Probably recommended, though, unless you have a Mac Pro and are installing windows onto its own hard drive.

Re:I've been running it for months....

[cheier]

What I am kinda hoping is that the updates fix some bugs in the drivers. I've had a number of occasions where the existing drivers caused things like BSOD and crashing. Most notably, I received a full hardware crash while using the webcam within Skype. There are some room for improvements in the driver, I just hope this update addresses them.

Re:I've been running it for months....

[ducomputergeek]

OpenSolaris works just fine. I've used the live CD and it works.

Re:I've been running it for months....

[BitZtream]

There are now optimized Win7 drivers, previously you were using generic drivers without acceleration provided by Microsoft or drivers designed for Vista from old versions of Bootcamp.

Both worked fine, but lacked full acceleration and feature set.

I've noticed the trackpad is better now, not so overly sensitive to touch or irratic. I've noticed no change in video performance at all. I really don't know what the differences are from a user perspective but as a causual gamer, I haven't noticed a difference in Company of Heros or StarTrek Online. Performance or quality seems the same.

I have had a bluescreen since updating which I never had before, but that was while playing StarTrek Online which I never played before. Only happened once and may have been there before the upgrade as well. It IS Windows after all.

Re:I've been running it for months....

[selven]

Have you tried running it in a boot-camp dual boot configuration with OSX? It should work just fine, but it's nice to know exactly what the limitations are.

Re:I've been running it for months....

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Boot Camp was always just the wizard. The BIOS firmware was slipstreamed into a system update.

Re:I've been running it for months....

[yuhong]

The BIOS firmware was slipstreamed into a system update.

Nope, it was always just separate.

Re:I've been running it for months....

[MemoryDragon]

It is the new machines which had problems, my guess is that bootcamp did not have all drivers in needed to run Win7 on the new machines (or install them that is)

Re:I've been running it for months....

[h4rm0ny]

This isn't me being argumentative, I'm genuinely asking. Why would you do this? Macs seems to cost more for the same amount of power that you'd get in a non-Mac machine. So the primary reason for buying a Mac as far as I can see if for the OS. Why would you replace it with Windows? Wouldn't you be better off buying a windows machine in the first place?

Re:I've been running it for months....

[itsdapead]

I'd trust these guys to get it right.

So, yes they were technically separate, but since the OS update, the firmware update and Boot Camp Beta were released more or less simultaneously its a bit moot.

The point is, before then installing Windows on a Mac at all was a hacker job whereas since then you can just stick in a Windows DVD, the only hacky bit (where BootCamp comes in) being the hybrid partitioning. If you've got a Mac Pro where you can stick Windows on a separate MBR-format HD to OS X you really don't need Boot Camp Assisistant at all.

Re:I've been running it for months....

[Mattsson]

When installing 64-bit Win 7, I even had Bootcamp specifically state that I couldn't run a 64-bit system on my (in Apples eyes) old Core 2 Duo Imac.
Bypassing the Bootcamp installer and installing all the 64-bit drivers manually instead got everything working though...
It irks me when Apple tries to artificially limit what versions of Windows I can run on my machine, when it is both technically and on a driver level compatible with all versions of both XP, Vista and 7. =P

And the statement that Bootcamp with Windows 7 requires OS X 10.6 is absolutely false.
It requires some of the Apple-specific drivers that comes with Bootcamp 3.1, that's all. Running Windows on a Mac doesn't require you to ever have had OS X on it at all...

Great news

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great news for the gay and lesbian community (not that there's anything wrong with that, BTW).

I applaud Apple for their unceasing support for rainbow nerds everywhere.

Regards,
Father Paul Flannigan

Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways tha

[Joe The Dragon]

Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways that apple locks down there hardware and makes you pay more.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Is English your third language? The only thing more feeble than your grip on the English language is your tired and ill-informed "argument". /. sucks these days. Also, fuck the facebook and twitter buttons. Ugh!

Unofficially for a while...

[mederjo]

I've been running Windows 7 RTM without problems on my Nehalem Mac Pro using Bootcamp for months. It was so painless I've forgotten the details but I think I started off with the Leopard Boot Camp and then updated it with the Boot Camp off the Snow Leopard GM. I did a clean install on a new partition. Windows 7 installed more easily than Vista Ultimate 64.

Re:Unofficially for a while...

[mederjo]

Replying to my own post, but out of the OSes I installed on my Mac Pro late last year Ubuntu was the most hassle because it didn't support the Intel ethernet card. I ended up having to recompile the drivers. Good thing I had other machines with a network connection otherwise I would have been a bit stuck.

Re:Unofficially for a while...

[Anonymous Coward]

i did the same thing

It's been running fine for me for over a month.

[Brie and gherkins]

Unless there's some optimisation of drivers? I've not had any problems with a fresh install of Windows 7 64-bit on my MacBookPro multibody using Bootcamp 3.0.1 on Snow Leopard. What problems have people had?

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[LostCluster]

$29 upgrade fee send you into bankruptcy? How'd you afford the $100+ for whatever version of Windows you got?

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[iMouse]

You DON'T NEED this update to run Windows 7 on a Mac in Boot Camp. This update is more or less targeted at newer Macs that already shipped with Snow Leopard that are experiencing problems installing 7. (see link)

http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/windows-classic-linux-other-os/174668-windows-7-27-imac-black-screen.html

Windows 7 installed on Boot Camp 2.0 in Leopard also works fine.

 
  ...more ways people post crap before doing any research.

Hint: If you want Win7 64bit on older MBP

[linumax]

These Macs won't have an issue with 64bit Win7 (or Vista). If however, you have an older machine as in my case (2007 Santa Rosa MBP) you might have trouble installing Windows 7 using the DVD.

In case it locks at boot up when trying to install you can modify the ISO and burn it to a new DVD. I used this guide and it worked fine.

Re:Hint: If you want Win7 64bit on older MBP

[hedrick]

I'm running Windows 7 on the original 2006 Intel Macbook Pro with no problem. The Bootcamp update wasn't supposed to work on machines that old, but did.

Re:Hint: If you want Win7 64bit on older MBP

[linumax]

Firstly, it's only 64 bit and secondly the problem is not related to bootcamp at all. The second link has some explanation:

Unfortunately, I could not get the Windows 7 x64 DVD to boot. After restarting and choosing the Windows DVD at the boot screen, the screen would blank out and just display “Select CD-ROM Boot Type” and refuse to continue.

I had the exact problem as above so posted this workaround in case others with older machines had it.

Re:Hint: If you want Win7 64bit on older MBP

[yuhong]

Yea, when is Apple going to support booting Vista/7 on Intel Macs using EFI-native booting?

After Some Delay...

[macs4all]

...Slashdot FINALLY reports this news...

Um, the BootCamp update has been released almost TEN DAYS AGO, ya know.

Old news for nerds, stuff that mattered a week ago.

Good place to ask for help

[MichaelSmith]

I want to install windows XP on my wife's macbook pro. A ran bootcamp and windows installed okay but my XP install disk is pre service pack 2. The apple drivers for windows on the macbook require SP2. Windows can't use the ethernet or wifi to upgrade itself. Microsoft don't give you a simple executable to download to upgrade to later service packs unless you have a special account with them.

My brother gave me an executable which supposedly will install SP2 but it failed for a bizarre reason (claims only 3 megabytes free, I have about 80 Gig).

So I am stuck. Any suggestions? Thanks.

Re:Good place to ask for help

[heffrey]

Slipstream SP2 onto the SP1 XP disc. Slipstreaming is the process of converting an installation disk to a higher service pack (well, that's what I think it is!) A bit of Google and you should be there in an hour or so.

Re:Good place to ask for help

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to install windows XP on my wife's macbook pro. A ran bootcamp and windows installed okay but my XP install disk is pre service pack 2. The apple drivers for windows on the macbook require SP2. Windows can't use the ethernet or wifi to upgrade itself. Microsoft don't give you a simple executable to download to upgrade to later service packs unless you have a special account with them.

My brother gave me an executable which supposedly will install SP2 but it failed for a bizarre reason (claims only 3 megabytes free, I have about 80 Gig).

So I am stuck. Any suggestions? Thanks.

Google. Every single xp userland problem ever has been discussed, if not solved some place. You'll find the answer.

Re:Good place to ask for help

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen this problems before. Theres a registry hack to get the SP2 to install properly. It's got to do with the Mac EFI.

1. Click Start – Run – Type “regedit” and press enter.

2. Navigate to

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Setup]

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE
        \Software
                  \Microsoft
                            \Windows
                                    \CurrentVersion
                                              \Setup

3. In the right pane, Right-click and select New – String value

4. Name it as “BootDir” and set its value to “C:\”

Re:Good place to ask for help

[jo_ham]

What version of the bootcamp software do you have on the MBP - the earlier versions had a problem with SP2 that caused the SP2 installer to report only 3mb of space and fail, due to the way it was looking at partitions on the HD and looking at the wrong one.

If you can get a later copy of bootcamp (the windows part of it that you install with the drivers) then it should cure that issue. There is also a manual registry change you can make that sometimes works.

Re:Good place to ask for help

[MichaelSmith]

Thanks that very helpful. I found a howto which links to an install of SP2 and I tried that file directly. But it does the same thing as my brothers file. It fails with a message saying the system has less than 4 mb free. I will try the full slipstreaming thing. Thanks.

Re:Good place to ask for help

[MichaelSmith]

I can't put the windows part of bootcamp onto windows because it requires SP2. I just tried another direct install of SP2 but it fails and says I have less than 4 mb free.

Okay looking for the registry trick. This seems to have done the trick. Thanks.

Re:Good place to ask for help

[maxume]

Maybe the installer is broken. You could try downloading SP3:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=5B33B5A8-5E76-401F-BE08-1E1555D4F3D4&displaylang=en

(or SP2, it is available in a similar package)

If the installer is intact, you are of into fun fun haha land.

Re:Good place to ask for help

[jo_ham]

Ah of course, I forgot that - hopefully the registry trick does the job for you

Re:Good place to ask for help

[MeanE]

If you are getting the 4mb error this is usually due to an old version of bootcamp in Leopard. If you are running Leopard you need at least boot camp 2.1 http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/apple/application_updates/bootcampwindowsxpdriversupdate21.html .

Although not required you can install 2.2 http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/apple/application_updates/bootcampdriversupdate22forwindows.html as well.

If you are running Snow Leopard then you might want to check out http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3841 and disabling this driver until you get SP's installed.

Then again all these problems could just be due to running SP0/1 .

Re:Good place to ask for help

[fast turtle]

Screw Slipstreaming SP2 onto the disk. The best solution is to simply grab the SP3 ISO image and burn a disk from it. This will install all of the updates after SP1 along with SP2 onto the system and it saves you valuable time futzing around trying to slipstream the updates onto the disk.

Re:Good place to ask for help

[guruevi]

I believe it's trying to use your EFI firmware 'partition' as an install base.

1. Run "regedit"

2. [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Setup]

3. New - String value

4. Name it "BootDir" and set its value to "C:\"

-- funny that Windows needs a (manual) setting to know where it itself is installed.

Re:Good place to ask for help

[MichaelSmith]

Yeah thanks I found that. I now have WindowsXP SP2 installed on the macbook with Revit and Autocad installed on it, which was the point of the exercise. My wife wants to run her CAD applications on her new laptop.

Thanks to everybody who helped.

I've had it installed...

[Schnoogs]

since last summer. Doesn't sound like a new feature to me.

(will get modded troll, redundant, off topic or flamebait)

Re:I've had it installed...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're already at a base score of -1, you can no longer be down modded. Either way, it actually is redundant, as several people have already brought up this point. Maybe you wouldn't have such shit karma if you actually read the comments first.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[jo_ham]

So the $29 cost of Snow Leopard is the crippling factor, not the $100+ cost of the Win7 copy you want to install?

The straw that broke the camel's back perhaps?

Oh wait, you torrented Windows and just want a cheap (ha) dig at Apple.

A year late...

[V50]

Heh, I've been running Windows 7 64 bit on my MacBook Pro for just over a year now, having downloaded the first public beta out of curiosity. IIRC, it took just a minor amount of tweaking to the get Vista drivers to work for Windows 7 beta.

On that note, I'm mildly dismayed to find Win7 ending up good enough to be used as my primary operating system, which as happened mostly because the DirectX World of Warcraft seems to run better than the OpenGL one for me. That and a few other programs. I feel dirty having OS X end up as my third most used OS on this computer. (Triple booting Ubuntu 9.10, Win7-64, OS X 10.6).

Re:A year late...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is that dismay?

Re:A year late...

[Anonymous Coward]

And you don't feel dirty for using World of Warcraft?

HFS+ driver..

[Anonymous Coward]

CMD still crashes when trying to run 'dir' on an HFS+ partition.. I guess their QA is still busy testing iPad?

WHO CARES! STOP APPLE STORIES

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we Gizmodo? No.
Are we TAUW? NO.

Sex 3Ith a doll

[Anonymous Coward]

obliga7ed to care least I won't the project to sales and so on,

How about the iPad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will this allow Windows 7 to run on the iPad as well?

mo parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha, what proof!!

/. Finally posts story about something 2 weeks old

[Anonymous Coward]

Post Date: January 19, 2010

ZOMG

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel dirty having OS X

As well you should, you flaming, fucking homosexual. Your ass is the go-to destination for every faggot in the state.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. "Share this on facebook", "Share this on twitter". More like "Share this with the shark we just jumped. " and "Share this with the judge at our chapter 7 bankruptcy hearing."

Yes, we know and updated 2 weeks ago.

[BitZtream]

Not enough Apple news this week, now we're pulling out things from weeks ago? Everyone who cares already updated when they started Windows 7 and were notified that new drivers were available.

Hell the date on the links show its from the 19th.

You also don't need 10.6, just boot Windows 7 with the old drivers installed and Bootcamp will notify you of the updates and install them if you let it.

TIMMAH!

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[hairyfeet]

But how often do you have to spend that $29? Because despite what MSFT wants you can be just fine in Windows only buying once every 5 years or so, and the way MSFT has been you are better off. Its like this... 98 good, WinME suck, XP SP2/3 good, Vista royal suck, Windows 7 good, so Windows 8 will be a hoover vac o' suck.

That figures up to spending that $100 every 5 years or so as last I checked you can get system builders Win7 HP for $104. At $29 a pop and the faster release schedule I wouldn't be surprised if it cost more in the long run for OSX, hell you Apple guys shell out all that cash on a machine just to shell out more cash just to get a decent warranty, so why not even more for the OS?

and slightly OT, but why won't Apple guys just admit it is a Ferrari and be done with it? I have seen Apple guys tie themselves in logic knots while jumping through flaming hoops trying to prove that Apple computer gear is a "good value" when we all know its bullshit. Apple is like Ferrari--It is sleek, it is sexy, it is exotic looking, it is expensive. Why is that so hard to accept? Hell according to this article more than a third of you are clearing over 100k a year, so just be happy you have money to burn on Ferraris, okay?

There are just certain laws of the universe you can't defeat: never get involved in a land war in Asia, Windows boxes are cheap, Linux guys like CLI, and Apple is expensive. Just be happy that you have enough disposable income to afford Ferrari computers and be happy, okay?

maybe an explanation

[zogger]

Maybe Apple gets all the first runs that pass QA well, and everyone else gets the rejects? Just sayin' because I haven't heard of Apple having a 45 percent failure rate. Or maybe on Apple's runs they have their own guys standing there watching the whole thing go down, to make sure they don't get stuck with lemons. Something like that.

note: not an apple fanboi, just thinking about what you have observed

Where's the quid pro quo?

[7andrew]

Still can't virtualise OSX though, at least not without a lot of difficulty and breaking the license terms.

Re:Where's the quid pro quo?

[Swampash]

OS X runs virtualised under VMWare with no problems whatsoever.

Re:Where's the quid pro quo?

[BitZtream]

Yes, but requiring a server license is rather expensive just so I can test development in a sandbox.

Re:Where's the quid pro quo?

[Swampash]

Parent didn't complain about it being expensive, he complained about it being difficult and illegal. And it's not.

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Macs are for faggots anyway.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[jo_ham]

Because if we say "the hardware is like a Ferrari" then you will come back with "no it;s not, its just the same parts as in my PC just costs more!" - which is true. The packaging of the components is what makes it cost more, and the price is at a point the market will bear.

I know I couldn't find anything in the PC world that matched the features of my iMac - the form factor, the weight, the portability, the ability to run OS X without making a hackintosh. I'm not going to "kid myself" that the parts inside it are like a Ferrari though - I mean, it only has a Radeon X1600 which was only a midrange GPU at the time I bought it, and a regular SATA HD that is the same as the one in a normal PC. You get the picture.

It is "good value" if you believe that the price you paid for something (anything you buy, not just computers) is worth the cost, regardless of what it is. My iMac cost me £1200 when I bought it, and it was totally worth the price *to me*. It wasn't the fastest, or the biggest HD, or the best GPU or the most RAM, but it was worth every pound I paid, even if I could buy an equally specced (in terms of just pure computer spec) PC for a lot less. It's not all about raw performance.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[subanark]

I finally broke down and got snow leopard party so I could install Windows 7.
Yes, the $29 was the crippling factor, as Windows wasn't critical to what I was doing.
The $100+ you speak of is $0 in my case because I'm at a collage where we get Windows 7 Business for free (even after we leave).

Maybe others have special 'deals' as well? Or maybe some are more afraid of Apple's wrath in pirating software than Microsoft's.

requires snow leopard?

[Anonymous Coward]

So to support Microsoft's best and most reliable OS you have to be running Apple's worst and least stable OS (since leaving classic behind). Funny.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[jo_ham]

Well, given that all of the OS X installers are just DVDs, with no serial number, no online activation, no phoning home and no protections to prevent easy cloning of the disc, I don't think Apple's wrath is is that strong on that front.

It's one of those things - it's only $29 (or $129 in previous releases).

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I installed Win 7 Ultimate X64 several weeks ago, but had a minor glitch in graphics and only one speaker working (though headphones worked well). The update for this fixed these issues.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it... a pretty collage?

Not really

[koan]

A clean install of Win 7 and the 3.1 package gave me no audio, a red light from the audio port (the opposite of what it was alleged to do) and no iSight, on further inspection in device manager there is also something called "coprocessor" that is not installed.
I got audio to work with drivers from Realtek, but no solution to the iSight issue or what the mysterious "coprocessor" is.

I don't know for sure but I would guess if you upgrade from Vista this most likely isn't an issue, I just never upgrade Windows OS's, always do a fresh install.

Re:Not really

[MistrBlank]

The red light from the audio port is the fiber optic, so unless your audio was showing as broken in device manager, it was actually working.

Re:Not really

[koan]

I'm aware of what it is, however the patch was to get rid of the issue in addition my internal speakers and headphones did not work, so you're wrong it was not "working".
So much for Win 7 support.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[gandhi_2]

Nope, it's about looking cool in front of your coffee-house hipster d-bag friends.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[mdwh2]

98 good, WinME suck, XP SP2/3 good, Vista royal suck, Windows 7 good, so Windows 8 will be a hoover vac o' suck.

It's just like Star Trek movies!

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[mdwh2]

The packaging of the components is what makes it cost more, and the price is at a point the market will bear.

What does packaging mean? And you could say that about any expensive product - "the price is at a point the market will bear".

I know I couldn't find anything in the PC world that matched the features of my iMac - ... the ability to run OS X without making a hackintosh.

Macs are PCs. And one could say there's nothing in the non-Amiga world that matches the features of an Amiga, because they can't run AmigaOS.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[mdwh2]

Or I could just install Windows on a non-Apple PC, and save the $29. Just because I spent $100, doesn't mean I feel like throwing an extra $29 away.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[hairyfeet]

I'm sorry, but you misunderstand me. I'm talking about the whole smash here, nit just the guts, which makes sense as you wouldn't drop a Ferrari engine in a Camaro and say it should be worth Ferrari money, would you? With the Apple machines it is about the whole design, just like a Ferrari- the design, the lines, weight, and the guts. Everything is designed together to complete a look, which while I don't care for it personally I can understand why some people do.

But I just don't get the logic hoops. You don't see Ferrari owners tying themselves in knots trying to "prove" their car is a good value, do you? Hell no! It is sleek, and sexy, and exotic, and expensive as hell. Same applies to Apple. Even though I don't care for them I'll be the first to admit that Jobs does have taste, and an Apple looks really nice sitting on a table. So just be happy Apple guys, okay? Be happy you have Ferrari money, don't pretend the rest of us have big wads o' cash to blow on sports car, live and let live.

/pulls up flame proof long johns/ It is JUST like how the Linux guys tie themselves into knots trying to claim Linux is 'ready for the masses' and when you point out average users are afraid of control panel and every Linux forum is filled with NOTHING but miles and miles of VERY complex CLI gibberish, they then go "but..but but...CLI is more elegant! And powerful! If they would just take the time to learn CLI all would love it!" Bullshit, complete and utter bullshit. Giving the average user CLI is like letting a monkey with a wrench loose in a bomb factory...no good will come of it. It is no different when Apple guys tie themselves into knots trying to claim average Joes should buy Macs because they are a "good value" even though they can usually buy 4 PCs for the price of a single decent Macbook.

Everything has it place, to everything a season. Macs are for those with shitloads o' cash, that want their PC to look good as well as run good. Linux is for guys with CS degrees or who aren't afraid of spending hours reading man pages and learning CLI commands. And Windows is for gamers, and those like my mother who if it involves more than "clicky clicky" freezes up and just looks lost. Everything has its place and instead of logic hoops, can't we all just accept that different tools do different jobs and are for different groups and be happy? Can't we all just....get along?

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[VGPowerlord]

I know I couldn't find anything in the PC world that matched the features of my iMac... the ability to run OS X without making a hackintosh

So, in other words "I know I couldn't find anything in the PC world that is a Mac."

Warning, circular logic detected!

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[jo_ham]

I hate coffee though. Do I have to drink it?

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[VGPowerlord]

The $100+ you speak of is $0 in my case because I'm at a collage where we get Windows 7 Business for free (even after we leave).

Windows 7 Professional you mean. It was only called Business in Vista; it was Professional for 2000/XP and is again for 7.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[jo_ham]

Packaging - show me a PC that looks just like the iMac, with the same slim case, the same weight and the same look, that packs into its box in two minutes, including the time it takes to unplug, that can then be carried like a suitcase because the box has a decent handle on it.

It's one of the reasons I like the iMac so much, plus the fact I can easily dual book Windows and OS X on it, and I do move it around a fair bit (it has made several transatlantic trips, for example).

Your second point is what I mean - yes, the Mac is "just a PC", but I like the convenience of OS X with no need to make a hackintosh, and the form factor of the case those PC parts are stuffed into.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[jo_ham]

Yes, if you don't need or want the Apple case, then there really is no point buying it.

I don't understand the need

[rudy_wayne]

I don't understand the need for Bootcamp. If you want to run Windows 7 then buy a PC -- it's considerably cheaper than a Mac. If there's some software that you *REALLY* need but only runs on Windows, then buy a PC -- it's considerably cheaper than a Mac.

Re:I don't understand the need

[BitZtream]

What about when you already own a Mac and occasionally want to run Windows? You may not be able to buy a PC that compares to the Mac you already have for less than the cost of a windows license or a cheap PC.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[jo_ham]

I'd love to - and the reason that you don;t tend to see many Ferrari owners trying to "prove" their car is good value is that people don;t spend time trying to prove that it's worthless.

I'm sure there are some who will say "that car is just a waste of money, buy a Corolla instead!" like you see people saying "Apple Macs are just overpriced toys and anyone who uses one is just trying to look hip and cool and values image over actually wanting to do any work"

Not everyone, but you won't need to look very far to find several of those type of posts in any Apple thread, so you will naturally see people attempting to defend it in response.

I am very much a "right tool for the job" guy, and the iMac happens to be that tool for me - I'm not a zealot or anything (and dual boot windows for some tasks). I'm not going to begrudge anyone their choice of machine or OS - but I spend a lot of time browsing /. and running across posts that criticise my choice of computer because they have a person axe to grind, or believe that anyone who doesn't make exactly the same computer choices as them is totally clueless and stupid.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[jo_ham]

Yes, that was an important feature to me, but even without the circular logic (say I had found the ideal PC case setup and decided to compromise and deal with the hackintosh setup), it just doesn't exist. Probably because people in the PC world are just not looking for what the iMac offers, and if they are they can just run windows on an actual iMac (and I know a guy that does just that on several iMacs in his office - they run XP 99.9% of the time they are on, only booting to OS X if any bootcamp changes are needed).

Mac mini + Acer Aspire Revo + KVM

[tepples]

Users of Mac Pros are ever so slightly better off

That or Mac mini, which is the basis for the "developing for iPhone requires Xcode, and Xcode costs $600" meme in Slashdot comments. One who has a Mac mini might as well buy an Acer Aspire Revo, which is essentially free with the purchase of a copy of Windows.

their windows applications would run faster in a VM than they would on a cheap PC

On a separate KVM'd box, Windows apps don't slow Mac apps down or make them start to swap, nor do Mac apps slow down Windows apps or make them start to swap.

and since cheap PCs rarely have graphics worth anything

Acer Aspire Revo has NVIDIA ION chipset, whose GPU handily beats the Intel Graphics My A--. Before about a year ago when Apple switched to NVIDIA for the iMac and Mac mini lines, this GMA could be found even in Mac mini and iMac.

External Drive

[Midnight Thunder]

With bootcamp can windows be made to boot off an external drive?

Fanboy alert !

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent +1, AppleButtBoy

Sure OK

[Anonymous Coward]

But when will they let me dual boot OSX on my PC? till then they are just Hypocritical ass hole and I won't spend a dime on any of their products. and what is with their new digital feminine hygiene product the iPad "a pad that tweets when your on the rag" all I can say is CRAP CRAP CRAP.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a mac owner and I compose music and play in a "brutal" deathmetal band. I don't tell anyone I own a mac. I just own it because apple offers software that I enjoy using. If people like OS X over Windows (or vice versa) what does it matter? Only SOME people buy computers for the effects of perceived status, but most do not.

Funny...

[Wyatt Earp]

I've been running it at work under 10.5 and 10.6 for a couple months with BootCamp with no problems.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[Kitkoan]

/pulls up flame proof long johns/ It is JUST like how the Linux guys tie themselves into knots trying to claim Linux is 'ready for the masses' and when you point out average users are afraid of control panel and every Linux forum is filled with NOTHING but miles and miles of VERY complex CLI gibberish

Not to flame, but to be honest (and regardless what might get mentioned to me) I've been using Ubuntu Linux for about a year, have had no problems with it aside from one wireless USB stick giving issues and had no idea what CLI meant (googled it tbh). The average user doesn't need to use CLI to use Linux when talking about things like Ubuntu. Maybe 10 years ago. Have I touched the terminal? Sure, to cut and paste what was mentioned on the Ubuntu forums to help me, rarely know what they will do beyond that it will work though (DVD ripping had an issue due to US laws and Ubuntu being from the US.) And no, having to cut and paste easy step by step instructions doesn't scare people away. Is it ready for the masses? Not sure, don't see why not just have to get people off the mind set that it'll be a LONG up hill climb because it wasn't I found

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[Kitkoan]

98 good, WinME suck, XP SP2/3 good, Vista royal suck, Windows 7 good, so Windows 8 will be a hoover vac o' suck.

You mean this new Windows: http://www.tburke.net/fun_stuff/pictures/computers/windows-cement.htm

Tell me where

[rsborg]

Because if we say "the hardware is like a Ferrari" then you will come back with "no it;s not, its just the same parts as in my PC just costs more!" - which is true.

Tell me where I can find as nice a case and trackpad as on my MacBookPro? I honestly would like to know, as all other trackpads I have tried... sucked (I've had a chance to play with dozens of laptops over the past 2 years and none compares to my MBP).

Re:Tell me where

[jo_ham]

Well that part was my second point - the same is true for my iMac - there is nothing in the PC world that compares to what it provides.

Breaks the already installed Windows 7

[Thanatiel]

I had Windows 7 installed on my Mac Book Pro/bootcamp for a few months now.
After the last bootcamp update Windows 7 crashed and self-destructed ("the installed windows os version does not match blablabla ...").
None of the repair solution worked : I had to re-install it from scratch.

Is this supposed to have just happened?

[cmprsdchse]

I've been running Windows 7 x64 and Snow Leopard in dual boot since about a month before Windows 7 was released. I don't think I had to jump through hoops to get Boot Camp set up either. Might have involved a single command line operation.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[ToasterMonkey]

But how often do you have to spend that $29? Because despite what MSFT wants you can be just fine in Windows only buying once every 5 years or so, and the way MSFT has been you are better off. Its like this... 98 good, WinME suck, XP SP2/3 good, Vista royal suck, Windows 7 good, so Windows 8 will be a hoover vac o' suck.

That figures up to spending that $100 every 5 years or so as last I checked you can get system builders Win7 HP for $104. At $29 a pop and the faster release schedule I wouldn't be surprised if it cost more in the long run for OSX, hell you Apple guys shell out all that cash on a machine just to shell out more cash just to get a decent warranty, so why not even more for the OS?

and slightly OT, but why won't Apple guys just admit it is a Ferrari and be done with it? I have seen Apple guys tie themselves in logic knots while jumping through flaming hoops trying to prove that Apple computer gear is a "good value" when we all know its bullshit. Apple is like Ferrari--It is sleek, it is sexy, it is exotic looking, it is expensive. Why is that so hard to accept? Hell according to this article more than a third of you are clearing over 100k a year, so just be happy you have money to burn on Ferraris, okay?

You can be just fine on a Mac upgrading your software every five years too. Your point? Of course not EVERY new thing will be backwards compat through five years of software upgrades and patches, and that goes with _any_ system.

What does buying a new version of OS X every five years cost? What is your basis for assuming it costs more than whatever Windows "system builder" is every five years? Is "system builder" even a fair comparison?

Macs are built largely from the same components PCs are, the same processes, and tolerances, etc. Your Ferrari analogy fails miserably.
Its more like Lincoln vs. Ford, to be honest. Macs do have a fair price for their value. People like you like to cheat and discount features you don't like/don't currently have as having no value. You can't just pick every feature from a product _you_ don't want and write the value off as $0. Even if you COULD build a car with one seat, no trunk, no floor mats, one door, and big engine, that does not invalidate the price of a fully featured car, and certainly doesn't compare. To break from cars a bit, I don't need every little doodad that came with my house, but I sure as shit paid for it all. Is my water heater a little too big for two people living here? Maybe. BFD, I'll enjoy longer showers. You can't tell someone that their stuff has no value because it doesn't to _you_, that's idiotic.

Quality, consistency, aesthetics, and support are all value adding features that geeks often mistakenly write off. You see this in software and hardware alike (amongst many other things.. like cars). What's amazing are the logic knots and flaming hoops you'll jump through to poo on things that later turn out to be successful products, then scratch your head and belittle the people who buy them because _they_ are wrong.

Academic version: $65

[Anonymous Coward]

And it is not a "starter" edition. Please tell me where to buy this magical $65 computer/unicorn/pony, and I'll buy you a legit copy of Windows 7.

Re:Academic version: $65

[tepples]

zerocool^ already mentioned academic pricing. You tell me where to buy a semester of tuition for $135 (the price difference between academic and retail pricing), and I'll tell you where to buy a $200 PC (monitor sold separately).

Inducement

[tepples]

Are you honestly concerned with "stealing" from Microsoft?

If I run a business, I am concerned about giving Microsoft the impression that I am encouraging my customers to commit copyright infringement. In my country, there's a legal precedent established in MPAA v. Grokster that encouraging customers to infringe is as bad as infringing.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[hairyfeet]

Then either you A-Researched your ass off before EVERY purchase, B-designed your entire setup around Ubuntu from the start, probably going so far as to buy an Ubuntu system, or C- really should be playing the lotto more, because you sir are one lucky bastard.

And as for why it isn't ready for the masses? Two reasons: 1-Paperweight roulette, and 2-CLI "fixes" when anything and everything goes wrong. As for the first, in my informal research I have found an average of 35% of the items in my local Walmart is "supported" and that is if you count "support" as putting in a page or two of Cli, which may or may not need to be tweaked, which may or may not work, which I don't. Removing those that leaves around 22-26%. Quick, can you tell me WITHOUT doing research, which Joe average will frankly never do, which ones work? You can't. You can't, I can't and the guy behind the counter sure as hell can't. To Joe average it is an OS,nothing more. He don't give a wet fart about "free as in freedom" and isn't gonna do extra work just to be "free" so that is a fail.

As for #2, lets be honest folks: the GUIs in Linux suck. While they look good on the surface if you try sticking to the GUI and ONLY to the GUI in Linux you will quickly find yourself screwed, and I can prove it. There is a chmod that will remove Bash from user access, yes? Do that. Remove Bash from your access for a single year. I'm willing to bet my last dollar that if you swore off CLI for a year you would have a broken machine in less than 6 months, or whenever the next distro upgrade (which at 6 months in Ubuntu is just fricking nuts) comes out. I believe the reasons for this are two fold. One, Linux is heavily skewed by CS degrees in its userbase, and two that the lion's share of Linux development is being paid by corporations that want Linux as a server OS and frankly couldn't care less about Linux as a desktop.

But CLI equals fail for Joe, because as I said he doesn't even like going near control panel in Windows. do you honestly think he will be comfortable in a CLI environment, with NO spellcheck or autocomplete, where a single mistype can equal borked system? And you said you copypasta'd, but by and large I have found that doesn't work, as the "fixes" often have to be tweaked, due to the fact that the CLI script writers system will not have the same hardware/software as YOUR system. Therefor what works for him usually will NOT work for you unless you "tweak" it, unlike Windows where XP is XP and Windows 7 is Windows 7. do you honestly think Joe average is gonna sit down and learn grep and cat and a dozen or two other CLI commands and get fluent enough with them to become qualified to tweak a page long mess of CLI?

So I'm sorry Linux guys, but working retail and dealing with Joe and sally average I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Linux is NOT ready for them. I know because I have tried selling it, Ubuntu 9.04 that last time. They will always get burned either by buying hardware at Walmart to go with their new system that won't work unless you jump through hours of CLI mess (thus raising my after market support costs through the roof) or they get bit right in the ass by "update foo broke my hardware" which due to the truly insane release schedule and lack of backwards compatibility or extensive QA testing is a serious problem at this time. I can't even remember when the last time a Windows update broke a customer's hardware, probably when Sp3 came out. A simple driver reinstall and all was good.

Linux is simply more expensive when you figure in after market support costs. A wise man once said "Linux is free if your time is worthless" and working retail I have to agree. It has too many problems that become serious timesinks and suck up all my profits. If someone wants to be their own tech support and learn CLI and take care of themselves that is one thing, but I have found those that are qualified to do that don't get bugs on Windows and thus have no reason to switch anyway. Linux may be free but my time isn't, and the cost of supporting it makes it more expensive than Windows. Glad that it works for you, but Joe and sally? Not so much.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[Kitkoan]

Then either you A-Researched your ass off before EVERY purchase, B-designed your entire setup around Ubuntu from the start, probably going so far as to buy an Ubuntu system, or C- really should be playing the lotto more, because you sir are one lucky bastard.

As for #2, lets be honest folks: the GUIs in Linux suck. While they look good on the surface if you try sticking to the GUI and ONLY to the GUI in Linux you will quickly find yourself screwed, and I can prove it

I found the GUI on Ubuntu quite nice and easy. Works like Windows pretty much that there was no learning curve. As for the computer I'm using it on, I'm running it on my old Acer 5920G laptop. Read up online on how to dual boot it since it had a seperate HD on it (read how to do that step by step from the desktop). Did that for about 2 months and released that for the 2 months I didn't even load Windows once so I just did a clean install which was a piece of cake. Only thing that doesn't work are the media/play dvd buttons, but never used those anyways

There is a chmod that will remove Bash from user access, yes? Do that. Remove Bash from your access for a single year. I'm willing to bet my last dollar that if you swore off CLI for a year you would have a broken machine in less than 6 months

And again, I'm going to look dumb... what is a chmod and a Bash? chmod isn't explained on http://www.computerhope.com/unix/uchmod.htm well, and Bash isn't explained either on http://ss64.com/bash/. I'm not saying I've had no problems, but none that a quick 'How do I do x on Ubuntu' search on google hasn't fixed with cut and paste commands. I'm not trying to sound like I don't know computers, because I do since I grew up with them. But thing is I know Windows computers, and found that even though Linux is a completely different system, it's not hard (read that it was 10 years ago but that has been really changing). I also understand your argument that CLI really is the most powerful way to do things in Linux, but the same is for Windows with the Dos Prompt, and even Mac OS has it's command prompt (http://ss64.com/osx/) and both of these OS's can more powerfully handled when done through a command prompt and if there users learned how to master these, then it would be better for them. But like many computer things, just because it can be done and learned, doesn't mean it has to be.

Screw windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows and Mac suck.
Get linux its better or the same in almost every aspect. And, best of all its free!

Since I started using a computer I used windows, however two days ago I switched to ubuntu.
Im never going to go back to windows... ever.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[hairyfeet]

Just the fact that you were able to discern your problem with enough clarity that you were able to go to Google, search for the relevant fix, find said fix, read the instructions, and apply it show that you are NOT anything like Joe average but actually have an analytical mind and are capable of complex problem solving. Compare that to the average conversation I have with my customers....Customer-my computer's broke /me/what's the problem? Customer-Didn't you hear? Its broke!

Big difference, huh? One of the nice things about Windows 7 is its built in Internet based troubleshooter frequently fixes the "Windows broke" problems that my customers used to dump on me. For those with XP I sell a $50 "optimization package" that sets it up to autoclean, autorepair registry problems, autoupdate, auto everything so that what they have is basically a toaster for the Internet.

As for "chmod"? It is a command that lets you modify permissions in Linux. And as for bash, remember when you went to the comman prompt? That's bash. here is chmod and here is one for bash, but in the end what I was trying to point out is without bash to input those "fixes" one typically needs in Linux after "update foo broke my" situations Linux quickly falls down and goes boom!

But I'm afraid your comparison to DOS and OSX CLi doesn't really work, as both my Windows and OSX customers have no idea that their OS even HAS a CLI prompt, whereas with Linux no CLI equals a dead system pretty quickly. Which makes sense as the corporations making huge code donations and paying for development only care about Linux as a server OS and frankly don't give a wet fart about Linux on the desktop, as that isn't where the money is at. Notice how even Ubuntu has now moved into the server OS business? I predict in 5 years Ubuntu will be primarily server (because that's where the money is) and Ubuntu desktop will be just another community OS.

The simple fact is billions are spent by MSFT on their OS to make sure the customer has as seamless an experience as possible, and while they don't spend as much Apple invests serious money into OSX as a desktop platform as well. At its heart Linux was, is, and I would argue based on spending always will be, a server OS that some have tried to shoehorn onto the desktop. But users like you, that can articulate their problems, search forums, find fixes, and apply them logically, are a teeny tiny niche I'm afraid, which is what the Linux community doesn't seem to be able to grasp. Joe and Sally will NOT research, nor will they learn bash, nor will they ever be comfortable in a task oriented environment, which is what Linux is. Believe me, as someone who works retail and deals with them 6 days I week I know of which I speak, and Linux is NOT ready for them, and I am talking as of Ubuntu 9.04 so I'm not talking about the past.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[Angostura]

Yes, it will run, but knowledgeable people tell me that without the proper bootcamp drivers it is possible to damage the CPU. Apparently conventional PC boards handle all of the power management in firmware. Apple saves a bit of cash by putting some of the functionality in the OS. Bottom line, don't use the proper drivers and your CPU can be getting a bit too much voltage in normal use. This usually isn't a problem, but it can make the machine run hot and may shorten the CPU life.

Still doesn't even work with XP!

[LoneIgadzra]

My favorite boot camp experience was installing the latest version (whatever came with snow leopard) on my parents' iMac and discovering that the realtek audio drivers thought the microphone jack was the headphone jack and the headphone jack was the microphone jack. (This happened in both XP and Vista.) On my MacBook Pro, I had to role back the Sigmatel audio because, when I left the machine on for a while, the audio would become more and more static-y. It seems like with every iteration of Boot Camp, I need to selectively role back a number of horrendous drivers to get full functionality, then install mobility-modded graphics drivers because the included ones are about a year out of date.