or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's "Boot Camp" beta runs Windows XP on Macs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's "Boot Camp" beta runs Windows XP on Macs - Page 4

post #121 of 511
How about someone actually installing Boot Camp and XP instead of talking about it - I am not wanting to be an early adopter until other folk go first.
post #122 of 511
Since Apple mentions Leopard a lot here, I've been wondering - why are they tying it to Leopard so much and not just saying it is new free software (albeit in beta stage at present)?

In my opinion, clearly there are more tweaks which are only available in 10.5. Hopefully 10.5 will save burning a CD of drivers, or perhaps it is actually part of a grand plan that in 10.5 would let you have the option or running XP and OSX simultaneously. I guess we'll find out in August.
post #123 of 511
It's basically the same way Xgrid and Safari were done, first as standalone downloadables, and then as items that were shipped with the next OS revision.
post #124 of 511
Good job Apple aren't supporting Windows on Mac, or else it would be much like this tomorrow in Cupertino:

post #125 of 511
That's It???? Where are the Intel iBooks, the updated iPods, and all the other actual physical products that have been rumored about?

Apple releases a software update that people have already done for over a month on their own, and Apple's stock goes up 5???

Happy Birthday Apple. For your 30 year party you decide to have Windows run on a Mac? Whoopity-Doo. Just what I always wanted.

Nice way to give the finger to your dedicated base... once again.
post #126 of 511
Yes, because as you can tell from the quiet little press release, this is how they chose to celebrate their 30th.

Newsflash: they *AREN'T* 'celebrating' their 30th. That was just something whipped up by the fanboi frenzy brigade, out of nothing.

If they have a 30th Anniversary anything, expect the usual hoopla.

Sheesh.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #127 of 511
This is huge but I think it's just the first step of many. I think the next step will deal with keeping and increasing the number of Mac OS X developers and it will appear at WWDC. It could be something that moves Leopard even further ahead of Vista, especially from a software developer's point of view. I'm excited just waiting to see what it will be.

Also, the thing about this is that many people will buy a new Mac but wind up never buying Windows for it. They think they will but once they start using the Mac, they will realize most of what they need is already there, and leave all their PC software running on their older PC box. They will be comforted just by having the option.

And more importantly, many companies will now allow Macs in since they have Windows site licenses. So people will use Windows when they need to (MS Access, Project) but begin to drop into the Mac OS X for other tasks.

Both of these things will cause the Mac OS X user base to grow, and developer's will see that.

Altho I have no evidence, I just think that Apple made this move from a position of confidence and strength in its future OS releases (compared to Vista and Linux), not from a position of weakness.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #128 of 511
I'm frankly surprised that people don't see the inevitable coming.

We're eventually going to buy somewhat generic hardware and then we'll license whatever OS we need. Virtualization is going to expand throughout the computer encompassing even the I/O.

someday you may have cores in your computer dedicated to certain OS. Everything will be able to modifiable. Storage Virtualization, Hardware and software will combine to make the configuration you need a matter of mouse clicks.

Apple need not stand flat footed whilst this transmogrification occurs.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #129 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by ZO
I'd REALLY like to see drivers for that damn iSight camera for Windows..

AFAIK, the video part works, but not the Audio..

*grrrrrrrr*

Well, it did not take long for someone to bitch.

Be thankful, we could still have "the hack".
post #130 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Virtualization and dual booting are two distinct duties. Virtualation is a Ferrari whereby Dual Booting is an Edsel.

THIS is one of the very few times I disagree with you hmurchison. Is dual booting kind of a hassel? Yes. Is dual booting faster than virtualization? YES!

With virtualization you are going to have the main OS have a lot of overhead... in this case OS X. The main OS has to treat the virtualization software and virtualized OS as an application. That means protected memory, restricted access to hardware, etc. This means more latency between all the devices in the computer. This means more cpu cycles... which in turn means SLOWER speed.

Does virtualization have it's place? Yes. Does dual booting have it's place? Definitely. Calling dual booting a total flop (in reference to your Edsel comment), is stretching it. Both methods have huge pros and huge cons. Dual booting IS here to stay because people need native speed. Whether that speed is needed in 3D Studio Max, Autocad, or games... Virtualization simply can't supply the same speed you would get from a dual boot.

On the other hand, what makes virtualization cool is the fact that you can use windows apps from within OS X. BUT these apps again are going to have latency... so you'll still be sticking to less performance demanding applications.

For those who need native speed, need dual booting. Leave the virtualization up to the companies that have experience with it. It will come with time.

Quote:
I'm not worried about the OS/2 effect because Apple is not guaranteeing Windows support out the box. This is purely your own endeavour and you must provide your own windows software.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #131 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
Virtualization simply can't supply the same speed you would get from a dual boot.

Would 95% of native be enough to offset the dual-boot hassle for you?
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #132 of 511
I too am hoping for virtualization in Leopard rather than this dual-boot cludge.
post #133 of 511
emig647

Doggone it I failed to look at the two from a speed point of view. Although my car analogy would make someone think about speed.

I think there is a need for both. Hardware supported Virtualization will speed things up but I expect that booting into one OS should remain the fastest way to run an OS for the forseeable future.



Quote:
Would 95% of native be enough to offset the dual-boot hassle for you?

Hell I'd deal with the hassle for %90 of native speed
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #134 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Yes, because as you can tell from the quiet little press release, this is how they chose to celebrate their 30th.

Newsflash: they *AREN'T* 'celebrating' their 30th. That was just something whipped up by the fanboi frenzy brigade, out of nothing.

If they have a 30th Anniversary anything, expect the usual hoopla.

Sheesh.

Oh, I'm sorry. I guess it's just because I am a part of the fanboi frenzy brigade that when Jobs hinted at something big for the 30th back in January to finish off the Macworld Expo... I would think that he means that Apple is going to release something big to celebrate the 30th anniversary.
post #135 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'm frankly surprised that people don't see the inevitable coming.

We're eventually going to buy somewhat generic hardware and then we'll license whatever OS we need. Virtualization is going to expand throughout the computer encompassing even the I/O.

someday you may have cores in your computer dedicated to certain OS. Everything will be able to modifiable. Storage Virtualization, Hardware and software will combine to make the configuration you need a matter of mouse clicks.

Apple need not stand flat footed whilst this transmogrification occurs.

Also disagree. Eventually there will be an OS that can do everything. M$, Apple, Linux, or someone else... I still see 1 OS running 1 system. Why have more than one if there are stricter standards? I can even eventually see someone like IEEE getting involved and making standards so there isn't craziness. Maybe not... who knows.

BUT would I want more than 1 os controlling my hardware at a time?! NOOOOOOOOO WAYYYYYYYYYYYY. Trust me, I would love virtualization to do better testing (I'm SQA). And I'll welcome it when it comes... but you won't find me virtualizing 3ds Max or Cinema 4d inside that virtualized OS.

/coils back after seeing hmurchison's reply to mah last comment... *hugs hmurchison*

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #136 of 511
Just a curious question..but regarding virtualization over dual booting..with the new mac coming out with Quad and more processor..could apple make it so that when virtualization is turned on 1/2 of the processors go to each OS..improving performance over a VPC style slowdown?
post #137 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveGee
Lets face it... There are really two (nee four) distinct "Mac Users"

1. Those who love OS X but want to play the hot new games

Group 1 = Dual boot is the ONLY way to fly (game gets the most speed)

Actually, Microsoft kindly solved that problem for me After years of building my own computers from hand-picked parts, and carefully phasing out bottlenecks whenever the computer became too slow to run the newest games, i actually bought an Xbox. Like many other people of my age and background, at one point, we've had our fun tinkering with hardware, and we instead just want a plug and play gaming experience without needing to fiddle with settings (or config files) to achieve the desired resolutions at the desired frame rates. My Xbox [i'm still undecided about the 360] fulfills all my gaming needs with far less troubles.

In fact for very similar reasons i moved from Linux [and XP] to a Mac. It just works.
post #138 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
THIS is one of the very few times I disagree with you hmurchison. Is dual booting kind of a hassel? Yes. Is dual booting faster than virtualization? YES!

With virtualization you are going to have the main OS have a lot of overhead... in this case OS X. The main OS has to treat the virtualization software and virtualized OS as an application. That means protected memory, restricted access to hardware, etc. This means more latency between all the devices in the computer. This means more cpu cycles... which in turn means SLOWER speed.

Does virtualization have it's place? Yes. Does dual booting have it's place? Definitely. Calling dual booting a total flop (in reference to your Edsel comment), is stretching it. Both methods have huge pros and huge cons. Dual booting IS here to stay because people need native speed. Whether that speed is needed in 3D Studio Max, Autocad, or games... Virtualization simply can't supply the same speed you would get from a dual boot.

On the other hand, what makes virtualization cool is the fact that you can use windows apps from within OS X. BUT these apps again are going to have latency... so you'll still be sticking to less performance demanding applications.

For those who need native speed, need dual booting. Leave the virtualization up to the companies that have experience with it. It will come with time.

There are going to pros and cons with both. For me the advantages of virtualization will outway the performance hit IF performance hit is no more than 20%. If I have a core duo or merom for that matter that can run win xp at 80% of speed on windows box, hell I'll be more than happy.
That probably still faster than my p4 at work.
post #139 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by climber
Just a curious question..but regarding virtualization over dual booting..with the new mac coming out with Quad and more processor..could apple make it so that when virtualization is turned on 1/2 of the processors go to each OS..improving performance over a VPC style slowdown?

See my reply right above yours... would you want 2 OS's sharing a computer? That will == more complex problems... esp with malware...

There is a reason they restricted hardware to the OS recently. I don't know if you were around but back in the pre win 2k days... and pre os x days... hardware could be directly accessed by applications... which caused a lot of lock ups. No thanks, I'll stick to mah 1 OS per machine rule =)

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #140 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveGee
Anders,

I'm surprised at you... Do you REALLY think Apple didn't have this plan (even if 'on the back burner') from the beginning. Heck it was Apple that made the first public Intel-Macs not able to boot XP in the first place. The developer boxes were bios based not EFI based and it was Apple that made the new EFI setup 'just difficult enough' for them to not boot XP - well almost - the revenge of the geeks strikes again (sans accelerated video support)!

What I'd bet....

Apple had this plan all along but wanted to wait till one of the following:

1 - The Pro machines were shipping/announced
2 - The Intel iBooks were shipping
3 - Something else - WWDC perhaps (but that woulda been kinda weird)
4 - Virtualization was available on the Intel CPUs so you didn't NEED to choose what to boot in.

One think I think the 'OnMac' contest did was force Apples hand and get this out now before the other solution got a real following/foothold.

That I have no doubt about.

Dave

Man, I have posted all over the place, so many times now, that you would think that every living soul on the freaking planet would know. This certaintly isn't surprising. I have been expecting something like it for a while. check this out. Read down to the bottom, and all will become clear.

http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.ph...esistant_code/
post #141 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
There are going to pros and cons with both. For me the advantages of virtualization will outway the performance hit IF performance hit is no more than 20%. If I have a core duo or merom for that matter that can run win xp at 80% of speed on windows box, hell I'll be more than happy.
That probably still faster than my p4 at work.

I'm not sure what work u do... but think about 3d modelers and engineers. Other things need to be accessed like the graphics card, the sound card, the ram, not just the cpu... yes the cpu may be 20% slower, but everything else will be slower as well... which adds up =)...

*IS HERE TO DEFEND DUAL BOOTING* *makes a stand*

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #142 of 511
Hmm, the PowerMac G5 just took a deep dive in value. I was thinking of grabbing one at a bargain when the Mactel desktops came out (I like some of my old OS9 applications), but the prospect of being able to run Windows on a new Mactel desktop is more appealing.

They were already stalled, but PowerMac G5 sales just fell off a cliff.
post #143 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
[B]$129? Surely that's the upgrade price?

A plain copy here in the UK is about £250 retail.

You know that if you buy an internal drive cable, or some such nonsense, you can get the Professional OEM copy for, I think it is $89. Though the price might be somewhat higher now.

Of course, MS won't support it directly.
post #144 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
See my reply right above yours... would you want 2 OS's sharing a computer? That will == more complex problems... esp with malware...

There is a reason they restricted hardware to the OS recently. I don't know if you were around but back in the pre win 2k days... and pre os x days... hardware could be directly accessed by applications... which caused a lot of lock ups. No thanks, I'll stick to mah 1 OS per machine rule =)

Personally it doesn't really matter to me just curious what apple might be thinking to keep both sides happy if that is their big plan..we all want big better faster stronger ..Macs!
post #145 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison


We're eventually going to buy somewhat generic hardware and then we'll license whatever OS we need. Virtualization is going to expand throughout the computer encompassing even the I/O.



Not when certain makers of an OS have a business model that revolves around selling hardware (Apple). I think if you look down the road far enough, you will see Apple become primarily a high-end hardware seller that develops certain specialty software programs that can only be run on their machines.
post #146 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by JohnnySmith
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess it's just because I am a part of the fanboi frenzy brigade that when Jobs hinted at something big for the 30th back in January to finish off the Macworld Expo... I would think that he means that Apple is going to release something big to celebrate the 30th anniversary.

He never hinted at anything, that's the whole point Kich was trying to make! You just whipped it up inside your pretty little noggin.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #147 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by baygbm
Hmm, the PowerMac G5 just took a deep dive in value. I was thinking of grabbing one at a bargain when the Mactel desktops came out (I like some of my old OS9 applications), but the prospect of being able to run Windows on a new Mactel desktop is more appealing.

They were already stalled, but PowerMac G5 sales just fell off a cliff.

LOL i just sent your comment to like 5 of mah buddies that just bought new dual core g5's a few months before intel came out... LOL @ THEM =D

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #148 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Read down to the bottom, and all will become clear.

http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.ph...esistant_code/

Ooooookay, clear as mud.

1) The URL is kaput. Removing the crud from the middle that shows up in my address bar, I get bumped to the BootCamp article. Not seeing anything new there.

2) The URL you *gave* looks interesting, but doesn't seem to resolve to a page on that topic.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #149 of 511
oh Apple and the funneh

Quote:
A printer for the instructions (Youll want to print them before installing Windows, really.)
post #150 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Notice that the Mac side can *read* NTFS, *but not write*. All data goes Windows -> Mac.

Yes, but you and I both know that this isn't a deliberate limitation. Microsoft refuses to give out the specs for NTFS, and Apple is using FreeBSD's NTFS implementation. Apple could, of course, ask Microsoft for a license.
post #151 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Flounder
He never hinted at anything, that's the whole point Kich was trying to make! You just whipped it up inside your pretty little noggin.

Well to be fair, he did hint at *something*... he just didn't say anything about what, when, or how. IIRC, it was something like "And as you know, our 30th birthday is coming up... we might have to do something for that."

That was it. Suddenly, it became "OMGWTFLOLBBQ! Jobs promised us {tablets, Intel PowerMacs, widescreen iPods, MacOS X 10.5} on April 1st!!!"

*IF* they do anything, they'll pre-announce the crap out of it like they have every other announcement of note. We'll get at least one week's notice, and then we'll see what they have up their sleeve.

Apple didn't promise squat. And that's exactly what y'all got.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #152 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
LOL i just sent your comment to like 5 of mah buddies that just bought new dual core g5's a few months before intel came out... LOL @ THEM =D

The low end G5 is $1999. The education price of the low end G5 is $1799. What would I pay for one now knowing that Windows will run a Mactel? $200-$300.
post #153 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Yes, but you and I both know that this isn't a deliberate limitation. Microsoft refuses to give out the specs for NTFS, and Apple is using FreeBSD's NTFS implementation. Apple could, of course, ask Microsoft for a license.

You're right, they could.

So why haven't they?

Possible reason above - no sense in doing so when you're intending it to be a migration path, not a cross-compatibility tool.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #154 of 511
I'm still not convinced that Adobe won't drop development of OSX apps. We just saw the report recently from one of their engineers talking about how much work it was and how hard it was (blah dee blah blah) to write the MacIntel version of Photoshop. What he really was saying was how EXPENSIVE it is to have a fully separate team of engineers writing code for a different less popular OS. Adobe is not the small Mac based company it was 15 years ago. They are a huge publicly traded company with millions of share holders that Adobe is required by law to keep happy.

Think how much money they could save by firing the entire Mac dev team. They could take that money and make a deal with MS to include a cheap version of XP in a special "Let's Kill OSX" offer of Photoshop or Illustrator for XP. What would they have to lose? Very soon all Macs will be Intel based anyway and thus capable of running Windows.

Very often in the real world, shareholders (unfortunately) speak louder than customers.

Sorry, I'll stop pooping on it now.
post #155 of 511
What this tells me is that Apple is very secure that 10.5 will be better than XP or Vista. Developers and users given the choice will want to mostly use OS X.

I think Boot Camp will be used by a certain group of Mac users who have to integrate into the Windows world or use Windows only applications.

Most people will not buy a Mac then spend an additional $280 for Windows XP to then spend hundreds or thousands more dollars for Windows applications.
post #156 of 511
Quote:
I'm still not convinced that Adobe won't drop development of OSX apps. They could take that money and make a deal with MS to include a cheap version of XP in a special "Let's Kill OSX" offer of Photoshop or Illustrator for XP. What would they have to lose?

MS really isn't that much of a friend to Adobe. MS is developing tools that will compete directly with Flash and PDF. MS was developing software that would compete with Photoshop but has seemed to have dropped that project currently. But its clear that Adobe is not safe from MS.
post #157 of 511
Did no one else notice the significance of the name of the app? Boot Camp is the necessary evil you must suffer to go off and win the war.






--B
...


...
Reply
...


...
Reply
post #158 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
That's where you're wrong. Because gaming with a keyboard and mouse is better than playing Xbox titles.

You should leave this symbol when you're joking
post #159 of 511
As far as Mac gaming goes, lets be honest -- it doesn't exist. We get about two decent games a year ported over, along with an endless stream of crap and hopelessly outdated titles ("Fish Tycoon" anyone? Scheduled for release in April! I'm sure you all share my excitement over that one).

I'd love to have OS X versions of games, but since they don't exist, I will be playing the Windows versions, and now I don't have to buy another machine to do it. Thats great, and I think it is a good move for Apple.
post #160 of 511
What about halfway between virtualization and dual booting?

How about Apple has their own Virtual PC written into OSX that functions seamlessly like Classic (of course requiring a copy of XP)? Couldn't Apple force XP applications into using OSX windowing and open/save, etc. menus? Just thinking out loud here...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's "Boot Camp" beta runs Windows XP on Macs