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)."
.....just sayin'
Here's to the crazy ones
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?
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
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.
$29 upgrade fee send you into bankruptcy? How'd you afford the $100+ for whatever version of Windows you got?
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.