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 6

post #201 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Well, it does if resistant is spelled right.

But that still doesn't answer what I asked mel - what the relevance of this to BootCamp is, in his mind.

I'm sorry, I missed that part of your post.

Did you get to read the link?

If you did, then you can see that Apple seems to have intended their machines to boot from either Mac OS, Windows, or Linux.

That tells us that this was planned for quite some time, and that no one should be surprised. That this wasn't just some last minute response, as many seem to think it is.

The release now was surprising, but I think it was done to boost sales for the next quarter, and to boost the stock price, which, while continuing to drop, has just jumped almost 10% today.
post #202 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
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.

Really? That's mad!

I didn't know that. Then again I've never bought a copy of Windows as I've always worked for a company that developed Windows software. I've only ever owned 1 Windows laptop personally and that came with Windows 95. That got replaced with BeOS. My desktop got BeOS from the start, then Linux. Before that I only had Amigas at home. No Macs even.

I've a copy of Windows2000 I got in an MSDN developer pack back when I was working as a Windows dev which is running on VirtualPC on my iMac but that's it now.

So do you have to scout around for these OEM copies with a cable or just hang about on eBay?
post #203 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I'm sorry, I missed that part of your post.

Did you get to read the link?

If you did, then you can see that Apple seems to have intended their machines to boot from either Mac OS, Windows, or Linux.

That tells us that this was planned for quite some time, and that no one should be surprised. That this wasn't just some last minute response, as many seem to think it is.

The release now was surprising, but I think it was done to boost sales for the next quarter, and to boost the stock price, which, while continuing to drop, has just jumped almost 10% today.

Well, I agree that this was in the works for quite a while, but that patent filling looks to be about hosting an OS *on another* OS... not just booting multiple OSs independently, as I read it.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #204 of 511
You can actually create an SP2 installation CD from an original XP installation CD -- Google the words XP SP2 slipstreaming.

Quote:
Originally posted by pmjoe
Well, this is pretty useless, neither of the XP licenses/disks I have are Service Pack 2 based. This might have helped me decide to get an Intel Mac mini sooner, so I could get rid of the aging PC I keep around for Windows stuff. I'm not going to buy another copy of Windows just to do it though.

Since this is probably true for most anyone with a system older than a couple years, this doesn't seem like that useful of an approach. Apple ought to be aiming for people with aging XP systems as a way to get them over to Mac OS. People with newer copies of XP probably aren't the ones who will go out and buy a Mac just to run XP on it.
post #205 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Exactly. Which is why I don't think you'll see Apple provide an easier way to do so.

Why would they want you to switch *BACK* to Windows?

Don't fool yourself, this is a one-way migration tool masquerading as a dual-boot system.

And this is why Virtual PC is still better for me. I really don't care how slow Internet explorer is in VPC as all my development is in the Mac side. I just need to check my web design work in IE6, which isn't available on the Mac. That's the only reason I have to run Windows. Dual booting so I have to boot into windows, then back to OSX to write code, then boot to Windows to test just isn't going to work.
post #206 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
And this is why Virtual PC is still better for me. I really don't care how slow Internet explorer is in VPC as all my development is in the Mac side. I just need to check my web design work in IE6, which isn't available on the Mac. That's the only reason I have to run Windows. Dual booting so I have to boot into windows, then back to OSX to write code, then boot to Windows to test just isn't going to work.

Yup, I'm in the same boat - about once every two months, I need to make a couple of passes on data with a stats package on Windows. VPC is great for that, because I can just copy the results over to an article immediately and keep working on other things while it is crunching away.

This is definitely geared towards switchers who are hesitant.

Sort of "I Am Curious (Aqua)"
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #207 of 511
I'm concerned about this situation too. I hope that Apple makings things such that something written in xcode [e.g. quartz, etc] can be compiled to run on windows and linux. That would change the situation. I think the openstep api originally had this idea in it...


Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
My take:

First thing that will happen: Alienware will lose a large part of their portable customers.

Next thing: A moderate progress in the number of switchers.

Then: New middle to large sized apps will be Windows only. Most developers stop developing for Mac at the next large transition (be that processor or API), UNLESS Apple give them a good reason not to (much greater distance between Mac OS and WIndows).

So short term good move, long term bad move, UNLESS Apple use its comparable legacy-free situation to make advantages compared to WIndows
post #208 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Jleon
Hmm... 175 posts and not one person yet who has actually installed Boot Camp. I propose two possible explanations for this mystery:

1) Everyone who has tried has had their computer blow up and is thus unable to communicate with us,

or 2) Anyone who has done it is just doing too many cool things right now to get back to us about it.

3) Within 8 minutes of putting their new XP Macs on the net they were assimilated into the MS hive.
post #209 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Really? That's mad!

I didn't know that. Then again I've never bought a copy of Windows as I've always worked for a company that developed Windows software. I've only ever owned 1 Windows laptop personally and that came with Windows 95. That got replaced with BeOS. My desktop got BeOS from the start, then Linux. Before that I only had Amigas at home. No Macs even.

I've a copy of Windows2000 I got in an MSDN developer pack back when I was working as a Windows dev which is running on VirtualPC on my iMac but that's it now.

So do you have to scout around for these OEM copies with a cable or just hang about on eBay?

No, many websites will sell it to you that way. If you really want, I'll try and post a couple, assuming that the links will work, as the one I've been trying to post hasn't.
post #210 of 511
i tend to agree. i think darwine will provide this functionality for apps on which it works, but i doubt apple will ever support this capability.


Quote:
Originally posted by CrazyWingman
Personally, I just don't see the "Windows apps running transparently alongside OSX apps" functionality coming from Apple that a lot of people here are hoping for. Why? Because it would ruin the consistent* OSX experience.

Apple works very hard to make all of their apps feel the same. It's part of a good UI - make everything work the same so the user develops a sense of trust and intuition about how the system behaves. Drop Windows applications in unchanged - with their window-attached toolbars and differently arranged menus - and the experience will go to hell.

We've seen it happen already - people love to complain about how X Windows applications feel out of place on OSX. I think there were only two reasons Apple included X Windows functionality. First, it meant that they had a load of applications, right off the bat, that were fairly simple to port to OSX. Second, having a known, standard technology that is popular among the university crowd was a great draw for early adopters, who tend to be from the university crowd. I know some will say that these two points apply perfectly to Windows apps as well, but I think there is a difference.

The difference is that people who wanted to run X Windows apps on OSX were used to inconsistent interfaces. They expected every single X app to behave [sometimes completely] differently. So, mucking their UI was no big deal. Your average Windows user, OTOH doesn't put up with near as much. I'll say that the Windows interface is not nearly as consistent as OSX's, but it is definitely more consistent than X Windows. Just letting any old Windows program pop up a window on an OSX desktop will confuse the average user. (And if Apple advertises that it's possible, many average users will want to do it whether they need to or not.) They won't understand why this one app looks totally different than their others.

So, after that whole rant, I'd like to say that if Apple does provide the ability to run Windows apps without a reboot, I think we'll see something like a fast user switch to a Windows desktop that you can start in the background. Only there will you be able to launch and use Windows apps - keeping the visuals separate. There may be some nice cut&paste mechanism for getting data back and forth, but there will still be a line drawn somewhere.

My $0.02,
CrazyWingman

*Yes, I know, we can all point out several places where OSX is already inconsistent, but I'd consider those places meaningless in comparison to Windows apps in OSX.
post #211 of 511
I hate to disagree with my distinguished colleague (sorry Anders) but I just don't see #3 happening unless Apple ships virtualization of Windows, or hosting of Windows apps directly, by default. I just don't.

There are still competitors (mostly) to the big apps on the Mac side, with the exception of Office. (Sorry OpenOffice guys, but you're just not there quite yet.) (Nice that that five-year agreement just got renewed, eh?)

Every big developer is going to lose a ton of customers if they drop Mac support and tell them to dual boot. That's lost $. They'd *ALL* have to ditch in unison, otherwise their competition is going to come swooping in and snatch them away. If one goes, the others have more incentive to stay. Seriously - what % of Adobe's customers are Mac? Isn't it something really skewed (compared to overall marketshare) like 25-30%? You think they're going to leave that sitting on the table?

The small developers don't have the clout to even begin to tell users to dual boot. Besides, how many small devs are there out there that support Mac and WIndows both? \ The small Mac houses are going to stay Mac.

Virtualization is a whole other kettle of fish, but that's not what we've got here, and I don't see that happening until Cocoa/Win is a contender. Which will likely be never.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #212 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
Holy Black Turtle-neck batman! Macbooks have 2 mouse buttons?

All joking aside, imagine reading that same sentence 9 years ago...Most Mac-heads would have fallen on the floor laughing in between random OS8 crashes...my how far we have come.

ok, ok, I was thinking proper desktop Macs not portable toys for the vain.

You're right though, however, back in the OS8 days I wouldn't have been here though. I'd have rather have had dog poo on my shoe than use a Mac.

edit: to many 'thoughs' in the last sentence
post #213 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
someone posted a link to El Reg's predictions

After reading it, I'm sort of becoming scared too.

If you can run windows programs on a mac.. why would developers develop mac os x programs?

Also, I'm worried about viruses, like the ones that crept in on OSX when it ran OS 9 as a VM.

Come on, someone afflicted with the RDF please subdue my fears!

Virus's in Windows, sure. But that won't affect the Mac OS or partitions.
post #214 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Well, it's clear it's a beta. I downloaded it, installed it and wanted to run it. The first thing it said was: "upgrade your firmware". No link, no nothing. OK. So now I have to hunt for firmware upgrades.

So as I'm doing that, I find the firmware for Mac mini's (I have the Core Duo version). I download it, try to install it and it tells me 'This firmware cannot be upgraded on this computer'. Why? It's the only firmware upgrade for Intel Mac mini's and it's for the 'early 2006' Mac mini's.

You can't install XP because you need to upgrade your firmware, but you can't upgrade your firmware because your computer already has something that's newer than the one offered. This is great.

Have you already tried the previous hack to get Windows on your Mac? Apparently that interferes with the firmware update.
post #215 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
I hate to disagree with my distinguished colleague (sorry Anders) but I just don't see #3 happening unless Apple ships virtualization of Windows, or hosting of Windows apps directly, by default. I just don't.

There are still competitors (mostly) to the big apps on the Mac side, with the exception of Office. (Sorry OpenOffice guys, but you're just not there quite yet.) (Nice that that five-year agreement just got renewed, eh?)

Every big developer is going to lose a ton of customers if they drop Mac support and tell them to dual boot. That's lost $. They'd *ALL* have to ditch in unison, otherwise their competition is going to come swooping in and snatch them away. If one goes, the others have more incentive to stay. Seriously - what % of Adobe's customers are Mac? Isn't it something really skewed (compared to overall marketshare) like 25-30%? You think they're going to leave that sitting on the table?

The small developers don't have the clout to even begin to tell users to dual boot. Besides, how many small devs are there out there that support Mac and WIndows both? \ The small Mac houses are going to stay Mac.

Virtualization is a whole other kettle of fish, but that's not what we've got here, and I don't see that happening until Cocoa/Win is a contender. Which will likely be never.

It depends on who these developers are.

If they are Mac only developers, then they can make the choice to spend more bucks and move to Windows, and keep their Mac development team , until, and unless the Mac side dies to them (their customers moving to Windows). A large number of Mac only developers have done this over the years.

If they develop for both the Mac and Windows now, they could phase out their Mac programs as more people buy Macs, and install Windows.

Windows only developers, of course, can only gain here. They now have the possibility of their programs being used by Mac users who might never have considered their programs before. A certain catagory of program fits that description (it shall remain nameless).

The difficulty that has been discussed about this over the years is that Mac users, finding their most important program now only on Windows, might have no choice but to switch.

I don't agree that vitualization will make it easier for that to happen than dual bootint. I think that it is the other way around.

Dual booting makes it more likely that people will stay in Windows if they are booted there, because of the hassle.
post #216 of 511
The biggest developer of software for OSX is Apple. They aren't leaving anytime soon.
post #217 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
what's interesting is that no-one has mentioned that this wouldn't actually lead to Apple's demise. They'd just become another Windows PC manufacturer.

And how is that a good thing for Mac users or indeed the computing world in general?

If Apple end up selling Windows PCs then the last stronghold is Linux. Hmmm, colour me less than enthusiastic about that.
post #218 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Have you already tried the previous hack to get Windows on your Mac? Apparently that interferes with the firmware update.

Actually no. I do, however, have the files downloaded to my harddrive. I can't imagine that it would not install because I have those files in a .zip folder in my harddrive?

But stranger things have happened, so off to deleting them and trying again.

Nope, same problem.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #219 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
And how is that a good thing for Mac users or indeed the computing world in general?

If Apple end up selling Windows PCs then the last stronghold is Linux. Hmmm, colour me less than enthusiastic about that.

Oh hey, I never said that I thought that it would be a good thing. I'd hate it if it happened, I love OS X.

But now that Macs are Intel-based, death of OS X != death of Macs or Apple.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #220 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
It's O.K., don't be scared. Many years ago Apple sold Macs that also had PCs inside them, and that didn't drive the developers away.

I would say there is a small very long-term risk that Mac OS will die out, but what's interesting is that no-one has mentioned that this wouldn't actually lead to Apple's demise. They'd just become another Windows PC manufacturer.



Don't be.



?? Which were?

The first and only real viruses for OSX were run in classic mode (look it up ).

I'm still worried about less demand for OS X-only software leading, eventually to less supply. If you can run a windows program on a mac anyway, just not as well, that could make the difference between "let's do a cross-platform app" and "well, it sucks but the mac users can deal with it."

Like the el-reg article, adobe's uber-apps come to mind. (sits in the corner in a fetal position).

I also really don't want a virtual machine mode for windows in os x.. there's no way apple could plug that security hole (they never did, entirely, with "classic").

Also, if you can access your OS X files from windows, that too would be a problem... windows viruses could, permission-free, fiddle with stuff.
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #221 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Oh hey, I never said that I thought that it would be a good thing. I'd hate it if it happened, I love OS X.

But now that Macs are Intel-based, death of OS X != death of Macs or Apple.

May as well be if they are running Windows.
post #222 of 511
All,

One thing that I haven't really seen mention of on here is another possible response from Microsoft. What if they optimize a version of XP for Mac machines? This would not be that difficult for them to support.

You say...
What would be the point of that?
Well, what if you are a Mac user that has not really messed with windows since the 3.1 days? You install XP out of curiousity. You find yourself booting into it to try some apps that aren't out for the Mac. You find you aren't having nearly as many issues as you thought you would. It makes you start wondering...

The fact that many of the stories they have heard are greatly overstated won't help either. They don't have any blue screens of death. They realize that if they run a firewall and don't frequent porn or warez sites that they really aren't that likely to get a virus or spyware. Suddenly, they find themselves booting into XP more and more for the latest games, apps, etc.

This scenario would definitely give developers a reason to only introduce XP apps and would likely result in the scenario pointed to on Slashdot.

Also the fact that Apple has been taking on more and more of a development role helps/doesn't help their cause. If they end up being the only one making major apps for OSX other than MS Office, then they would definitely be in a no win scenario.

You say well...
That's fine. PC users can pay for a Mac to run XP. True, but it seems like Apple also generates sales from OS upgrades. If people are not upgrading OSX and they aren't upgrading their machines as often that would definitely move apple towards more of a Dell or HP scenario. (i.e. iPods, monitor, and computer sales)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I think Microsoft is taking enough of a beating right now on Vista that they don't have time to worry about this and don't really care. We will see if that holds true.

Regards,
Ocriss
post #223 of 511
I've got the open source xp on my machine right now, and I'm pretty sure that the firmware upgrade suceeded. It doesn't matter though, I'm erasing the windows partition, reinstalling mac, and then running Boot Camp. First I've just got to wait for all my junk to back up!
post #224 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
I've got the open source xp on my machine right now, and I'm pretty sure that the firmware upgrade suceeded. It doesn't matter though, I'm erasing the windows partition, reinstalling mac, and then running Boot Camp. First I've just got to wait for all my junk to back up!

woops, never mind, I just checked the unread articles on AI and found I have to download those MANUALLY! woot
post #225 of 511
Hi there

I downloaded bootcamp and after a few failed attempts at loaded the xp dvd, it worked. Spent time updating windows, etc, and boy, it works better than my pc notebooks. One machine is all I need now.
post #226 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Well, it does if resistant is spelled right.



You caught me. I wasn't sure if I spelt it right, but couldn't be bothered to double-check, and for some reason, when I went there, I did not get the "Did you mean" suggestion, whereas now I do.

Quote:
But that still doesn't answer what I asked mel - what the relevance of this to BootCamp is, in his mind.

*nod*
post #227 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Actually no. I do, however, have the files downloaded to my harddrive. I can't imagine that it would not install because I have those files in a .zip folder in my harddrive?

But stranger things have happened, so off to deleting them and trying again.

Nope, same problem.

Verify your drive. Make sure everything ok. That can stop this in its tracks.
post #228 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker

*nod*

Is that because you didn't get to read my subsequent post where I explained it, or because you didn't see the connection?

And, did you get to see the relevent part of the patent that I'm talking about?

I suppose I could copy some of it over to a post.
post #229 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Verify your drive. Make sure everything ok. That can stop this in its tracks.

Nope, same thing.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #230 of 511
Yeah, I read it, but I still don't see the connection, sorry. How does having different OSs installed increase Apple's need for "tamper-resistance"?
post #231 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross

The difficulty that has been discussed about this over the years is that Mac users, finding their most important program now only on Windows, might have no choice but to switch.

Well that assumes that Apple would stand still. Highly unlikely in my view. In my mind this only convinces me that Apple is committed to developing platform critical apps such as MS office and Adobe Creative Suite. They couldn't allow the above senario to occur.
post #232 of 511
Posting this from XP on my iMac.

The install went smoothly. XP is as annoying as ever but at least I can bring home the Access databases from work.

On second thought, maybe I should erase this install.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #233 of 511
Quote:
In my mind this only convinces me that Apple is committed to developing platform critical apps such as MS office and Adobe Creative Suite.

Apple cannot do it all alone, they need a development community.
post #234 of 511
does windows ruin at full speed? cause i only want to use it for pc gaming..
post #235 of 511
Yes, Windows will ruin your computing experience just as fast as on a Dell.



Yes, Windows will run at 'full speed'. It will depend on the optimization of the GPU drivers, etc, but it appears from what little benchmarking I've seen that it isn't bad for the hardware being used.

Fer instance: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?c=880378_1

Note the CPU marks on the iMac are *better* than the 3GHz PentiumD gaming rig. Wacky, huh?

The GPU marks are lower, but I'll leave it to someone else to interpret that.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #236 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
Apple cannot do it all alone, they need a development community.

I don't disagree but with apps that are critical to the viability of the platform it looks to me like Apple is willing to do the developement. Unlike MS I bet Apple would tolerate competition. But with boot camp they can't tolerate an adobe saying " we recognize that apple users can now boot into windows therfore we are going to concentrate all our efforts on win cs". Surely if we have discussed this senario here on these forums, it's been discuused at Apple. They surely have a contingency plan.
post #237 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It depends on who these developers are.

Okay, this all kind of hinges on a single point though...

Name the Mac developers that can tell their users "Oh well, we've decided to drop Mac support - just spend an additional $100-200 and then you can buy our Windows version on top of that...", and have them snap to and do it. I can't think of one. It'd be marketshare suicide for the app.

Heck, users bitch whine and moan about *regular* upgrade pricing - you think they're going to blow the money on a Windows license just to run an app? \

Like I said, it'd take every developer in an entire market segment ditching simultaneously to actually cause a problem, and I just don't see that happening. For every Adobe that might ditch, there are a couple other developers waiting in the wings, salivating at grabbing some of that marketshare.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #238 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCentric
Coming soon......

Jobs: Dell Should Close Shop

"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders," Steve Jobs said before a crowd of several thousand IT executives referring to the newly unprofitable status of Dell Corporation since the launch of BootCamp and Mac OS X Leopard.


http://news.com.com/Dell+Apple+shoul..._3-203937.html

LMFAO
post #239 of 511
Imagine that this thread is open only one day, and more than 11,000 views already. I guess you could say it's a big deal!
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #240 of 511
This is the best switcher strategy Apple has ever had.
Ever.

Dvorak's Apple->Windows idea seems a little less crazy today, doesn't it?
Apple is flat-out endorsing the use of Windows on Macs.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
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