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 3

post #81 of 511
Good summary DaveGee.

To the doomsayers I would add:

How is this going to make Apple just a high-end PC maker? How is this going to slow down OSX innovation?
How is this going to make XP any better as an everyday OS?
How is going to make XP andy less buggy and virus laden?
How is this going to make anyone move from OSX to XP?

What this will do is double Apple's share in two years and level a playing field that will force Apple to make OSX even better to use than XP no matter what M$ tries to do. We already have proof that a hacked MacBook Pro can run XP faster than Dell laptops. We have proof that customers would like a virus "free" alternative. We have a huge installed iPod user base. As M$ transitions to Vista and everyone is forced to upgrade to do anything with all of the bloatware, they will have finally a real choice to make!

What it won't do is get Windows-only developers to add Mac development unless Xcode (as described above) is cheap and easier and has ULTRA Universal binary capability.

It won't make switchers of ma and pa Kettle who only can afford a $400 PC with monitor since this basically makes a Mac at least twice as expensive with higher priced hardware and the Windows disc.

The big risk is the developer community in one or two years down the road. I'd like to hear from Adobe NOW about their upgrade plans and I'd love to see them on-stage at WWDC! As a matter of fact, that may need to be about 50% of the keynote is all of the big developers on stage with Steve pledging undying loyalty and describing how OSX innovation makes their apps better on a Mac.

It is a risk, but Steve had to move to closer to the middle of the market. Apple had to do this and it had a 6 month window (pun) to do it.
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #82 of 511
I'd REALLY like to see drivers for that damn iSight camera for Windows..

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

*grrrrrrrr*
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #83 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Jleon
Someone needs to be devil's advocate here:

A 150% price increase is still a very good reason not to switch for most Windows users. If I was Bill Gates I'd be popping open the champaign right now, their 95% market share will get closer to 100%, with 5% having both OS's.

And how are those Apple mice going to work with Windows XP, anyway?

Unless Bill's illiterate, I suspect he'll be popping open the champagne rather than the champaign.

This is a risky game for Apple - on the one hand a lot of people will buy Macs, knowing that they can run that essential Windows only app occasionally, and eventually loving OSX so much that they barely use Windows (I can think of some friends in this category).

On the other hand, lazy developers now have an excuse to develop just for Windows. Fingers crossed that doesn't happen. It wouldn't bother me hugely as I rely on very few third party apps (Office, Messenger and Photoshop Elements are the only major non-Apple apps I have), but if too many developers get lazy, it is a dangerous scenario.
post #84 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by lundy
Next on the agenda: Cocoa for Windows, in Xcode. All developers can move to Xcode and have a single codebase for the entire market. As the Mac market share skyrockets, developers will have more and more reason to do this. Cocoa already has objects and methods to do everything you can imagine, and all Apple has to do is change the internals of the frameworks so that they call into Windows dlls instead of Mac OS X frameworks. If Mac hardware sales get to, let's say 15% of the market, then some developers will move to Xcode to take advantage of that revenue stream, and others will follow.

Woah. Slow down there cowboy! While that sounds great, making XCode cross platform would be a mammoth undertaking. Plus, Apple want to create a nice developer environment so that the Mac gets loads of cool apps which makes the Mac a more attractive platform for users which means more Mac sales. If Apple were to make XCode cross platform, there would be less of a reason for current Windows users to switch. They could have their cake and eat it by running Windows on a cheap Dell and using iLife.

You'd never know though. 'hell is freezing over' seems to be an obligatory phrase with every bit of Apple news lately.
post #85 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*

Steve needs a couple of reasons for you to buy Leopard.

I'm sure someone will sort it out soon, though.
"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 #86 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
I believe there are ways to take the SP2 download and your original XP disc and merge the two onto a new CD-R so you start with an XP/SP2 install. I believe the term you want to search on is "slipstream". That's what I've heard it called.

[edit]
Here's a step by step instruction on slipstreaming XP + SP2:

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...slipstream.asp

Well, you just had to go and blow that excuse for me. Thanks! Wonder if it'll work with my XP ugrade (from NT) disks. Getting another mini is still a few months off for me though, the one I have isn't even a year old. What I really just need to do is finish migrating my old data over to Mac applications and formats.

That said, the average Windows user isn't going to be able to go do this.
post #87 of 511
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.

I haven't read all of the many pages of comments about Boot Camp, but in case no one else has answered your question:

http://www.nliteos.com/nlite.html

That's a free app which lets you roll your own XP cd's from a master, you can add service packs straight from the freely available .exe M$ provide. Also good for overriding various Windows settings before its even installed ... though I personally would play it safe as I don't know how Boot Camp would like many of those changed.

Anyway, SP2 for all.

Good luck with the Mini.
post #88 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by pmjoe
Well, you just had to go and blow that excuse for me. Thanks! Wonder if it'll work with my XP ugrade (from NT) disks. Getting another mini is still a few months off for me though, the one I have isn't even a year old. What I really just need to do is finish migrating my old data over to Mac applications and formats.

That said, the average Windows user isn't going to be able to go do this.



I doubt this will work with XP Upgrade discs. You'll need a full install disc in order to slipstream. Apple's BootCamp page also says XP upgrade discs won't work.
post #89 of 511
I think a majority here are indeed missing the fact that developers develop for PEOPLE. Not for an operating system. Mac is still the best Operating System in the world, and will be for a long time. There's no imagineable way windows can get ahead of Mac. Steve Jobs knows this, that's why this isn't a risky move for apple. As long as their are OSX users, there will be OSX developers.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Mac only has 4% of the market (nothing compared to windows), and they have a fantastic developer base! Clearly the developers don't see an advantage to writing for windows.
post #90 of 511
Also, Adobe is probably about the most loyal mac developer ever. There's no way they'd ever abandon it! Anyone who thinks they would are clearly NUTS!
post #91 of 511
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.
Mmmm... 12" PowerBook - my best computer yet!
Reply
Mmmm... 12" PowerBook - my best computer yet!
Reply
post #92 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Apple's challenge is/was/will-continue-to-be making OS X compelling enough to develop for and having truly compelling applications for it.
....
This is a potentially risky move. But without great risk, there is rarely great reward. This is a calculate gamble on their part. Probably a smart one. [/B]

I read someone post yesterday about the Yellow Box (i.e. running Apple apps on Windows machines). Now, imagine if Apple were to allow xCode to compile for both OS X and an installed Yellow Box on Windows. This would allow most software to be given the choice of running on either OS.

Does this mean that all Apple's apps would run on Windows? No, because they would want people to buy a Mac to run them (so they would not compile it for Yellow Box Windows). It would however allow develpers to write once and run on both OS X and Windows , if they wanted to.

Why would developers want to do this? Because OS X has some very nice features like Core Image/Audio/Data that make programs much easier to write. Apple would control more software that was written for OS X and Windows.
post #93 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by graf
The key word there is "retail". An OEM copy of XP Home is £75 ish.

How do you officially 'buy' an OEM version? By definition those aren't supposed to be for sale.
post #94 of 511
//paranoia mode on

someone will write a virus that erases the osx partition from within
your windows installation.

//paranoia mode off

the guys at apple should spend more time on existing customers and
bring all their pro apps, fix the finder bla bla etc... instead of catching more and more new customers.

go go go
post #95 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by G_Warren
Unless Bill's illiterate, I suspect he'll be popping open the champagne rather than the champaign.

This is a risky game for Apple - on the one hand a lot of people will buy Macs, knowing that they can run that essential Windows only app occasionally, and eventually loving OSX so much that they barely use Windows (I can think of some friends in this category).

On the other hand, lazy developers now have an excuse to develop just for Windows. Fingers crossed that doesn't happen. It wouldn't bother me hugely as I rely on very few third party apps (Office, Messenger and Photoshop Elements are the only major non-Apple apps I have), but if too many developers get lazy, it is a dangerous scenario.

I didn't think typos were anything to take "hugely."

It's not a matter of laziness, its a matter of the bottom line. Developers aren't in the business of providing charity to OS's. That being said, I agree that in the end, OSX may prove to be preferable to many when they get to have both. I think this will especially help Apple in the corporate and education markets too.
post #96 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
How do you officially 'buy' an OEM version? By definition those aren't supposed to be for sale.

Actually, by definition, OEM versions are legally allowed for sale as long as computer hardware is on the same purchase. It's part of the MS contract.
post #97 of 511
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.



you could take your xp disk and slipstream it with sp2
post #98 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Jleon
A 150% price increase is still a very good reason not to switch for most Windows users. If I was Bill Gates I'd be popping open the champaign right now, their 95% market share will get closer to 100%, with 5% having both OS's.

And how are those Apple mice going to work with Windows XP, anyway?

Welcome to the 21st century where Intel Macs ship with multi-button mice and Apple computers are actually about the same price as any other quality brand.

Sure, they aren't e-machines level of cheap, but it shows. Any consumer can spot that.
post #99 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
Actually, by definition, OEM versions are legally allowed for sale as long as computer hardware is on the same purchase. It's part of the MS contract.

Cool, so I have to buy another computer to get my cheap copy of XP?

Wait a moment...

post #100 of 511
I just love the Boot Camp logo so much.

It's Windows but...with an 'X' in the center...so it's Mac...and Windows...but...MACIFIED!

AHH!

Anyways, this is great news. And if I didn't just buy a new camera that I couldn't afford as is, I'd be going down to the Apple Store to pick up an Intel Mac today.

Bring on WWDC2006 for the Intel Power Macs (possibly "Mac Pro") and all the fun new Leopard features!

Vista isn't even out yet, and it already looks old.
post #101 of 511
I've little desire to use Windows XP these days, but the option is very nice for when I'm forced to do so.
post #102 of 511
Wow, this is absolutely incredible. Combine this with reports that the Mac Mini and iMac processors are upgradeable, and I just got switched back to Mac.
post #103 of 511
You guys know what this means don't you?

Say "Goodbye" to Microsoft Virtual PC for Mac.
post #104 of 511
This topic is hot! Hell it's on fire! Digg is gone crazy for this shit!
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 #105 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by dr_gonzo
Woah. Slow down there cowboy! While that sounds great, making XCode cross platform would be a mammoth undertaking. Plus, Apple want to create a nice developer environment so that the Mac gets loads of cool apps which makes the Mac a more attractive platform for users which means more Mac sales. If Apple were to make XCode cross platform, there would be less of a reason for current Windows users to switch. They could have their cake and eat it by running Windows on a cheap Dell and using iLife..

Well, to an extent, they already started that process.

You can develop apps in xCode using the Core Foundation 'Lite' framework which provides the low level classes for complete cross platform development across MacOSX, Linux and Windows.

http://developer.apple.com/opensource/cflite.html

I don't think they'll go as far as putting full Core Audio/Video Quartz etc on Windows or Linux but who knows what they'll do next on the fairground ride that is Apple.
post #106 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by wgauvin
So are we going to have to reburn our driver CD every time Apple decides to update
  • Graphics
  • Networking
  • Audio
  • AirPort wireless
  • Bluetooth
  • The Eject key (on Apple keyboards)
  • Brightness control for built-in displays

I like the idea, but I think Boot Camp is going to be even more than we expect, it will probably be the ground work for virtulisation that will allow Windows to run in Mac OSX.

My MBP was ordered today, I will wait and see how this whole BootCamp goes before I rush out and buy a XP installation

Only if you buy a new computer.

Otherwise, you could probably download updates.
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #107 of 511
Frankly, being able to run .exe files in Mac OS X is less interesting to me than just being able to boot Windows. Just seems cleaner and I sure as well want Windows away from my Mac files.
post #108 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Ireland
This topic is hot! Hell it's on fire! Digg is gone crazy for this shit!

It's like being here after a keynote...WITHOUT a keynote!

I don't recall who wrote it today, but someone said that this is the shot heard 'round the technology world. I agree.

If this is what Apple can do with a beta, Leopard is going to be unlike any Mac OS we've seen.

I'm excited. This is the most excited I've been about Macs for quite a while. Now I must go soak in the irony....
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #109 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by kotatsu
As a PC user of many years this is the beginning of what it will take to talk me into switching.

Virtualisation is what I'm waiting for. Once I can run 3DS Max from within OSX, I'll be joining you guys in Apple land.

If you're a PC user, why are you surfing APPLEINSIDER? I believe the curiosity surrounding Apple's ever infamous reputation of being the most innovative developer around may have something to do with it, no?
post #110 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by initiator
You guys know what this means don't you?

Say "Goodbye" to Microsoft Virtual PC for Mac.

Why?

MS still gets paid for (legal) copies of Windows being used with BootCamp.

For many people (like me), rebooting just to run one app is a lot of overhead I'd like to avoid.

Give me VPC any day over BootCamp, for just quickly running a statistics package to get a result to add to a paper I'm writing in TeXShop, for instance.

Different problems, different solutions... and MS makes money off of both.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #111 of 511
Although I think this is a good move to get people to switch, I am also worried about the effect on developers that go kicking and screaming when bringing their apps to MacOS. They now have one more reason not to bother.

Case in point: The US government is moving to electronic submission of grant applications (NIH etc). Currently, the software needed to do this is PC only. For all the Mac users, we were told to get Virtual PC or use something called Citrix. The company is working on a Mac version, and their lack of a Mac version has contributed to a delay in rolling out the electronic submission system, but the point is that Mac users were initialy put way back in the back of the line for a very mission-critical piece of software.

Switching your OS is great to be able to access a PC game or something, but I want all my daily software that I need to interact to get something done under one OS. The desktop metaphor applies: Can you imagine have two desks in two offices with half your work in one place and the other half in the other? I really hope that Apple and screaming Mac users don't let certain developers get aways with not supporting MacOS becuase we now have another option.
post #112 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by initiator
You guys know what this means don't you?

Say "Goodbye" to Microsoft Virtual PC for Mac.

Two different products.

VPC is virtualization. Running two OS simultaneously. Dual Booting is giving you the choice of running one OS.

Virtualization is key to Apple and every computer manufacturer's future.
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 #113 of 511
Wohoo! Cool news!
post #114 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Two different products.

VPC is virtualization. Running two OS simultaneously. Dual Booting is giving you the choice of running one OS.

Virtualization is key to Apple and every computer manufacturer's future.

That may be, but I will bet you will see an announcement on the ending of further development of VPC for Mac. Case in point, the almost silence of MS on the fate of VPC since the announcement of the switch to Intel.

I realize it's not an issue for people going forward, but there are still a fair number of PPC-based Macs. Microsoft dropping VPC for Mac is not a good thing for these people.
post #115 of 511
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.

The the user doesn;t uderstand why they look different, they why are they using a computer? Monkeys can probably dicern the difference between WINDOWS and OSX apps. Yes, monkeys. Remember, they also eat their own poo.
post #116 of 511
The announcement today made a sound...It was the firing of a starter's gun.

The race has begun.

EVERYONE is right, this could be a brilliant move to lure switchers and increase Mac market share - OR - it could lead to the death of OSX as anything more than a home for iLife, as developers abandon the platform in favor of the ubiquitous Windows juggernaut...

The answer as to which outcome it will be is dependent upon the pace of the race. If Apple can get enough 'switchers' on board to boast that this move is significantly increasing market share, then they can convince developers that OSX native versions are in their best interests (the future). In fact, they may even convince some that OSX-ONLY versions are worthwhile (draw people toward the future). After all, most users will quickly discover that OSX is simply a more pleasant environment.

On the other hand, if this doesn't improve Mac sales and it appears that a high number of MacIntel users are running Windows, developers will quickly determine that they can reach Mac users without an OSX native version.

How does Apple control the race?

1. Launch new products and 'inflate' sales figures (to swithcers) to demonstrate real growth.

2. Develop virtualization mode, so that should developers abandon OSX-native apps Apple and OSX can survive (and prosper) as a fully-compatible alternative to Windows. Same applications, different look.

Whether Apple can accomplish these goals before the tide turns against them is the big question. It's clear, however, that an ALL or NOTHING partitioned Windows solution is enticing but not in the best interests of the Mac platform.
post #117 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Jleon
I didn't think typos were anything to take "hugely."

It's not a matter of laziness, its a matter of the bottom line. Developers aren't in the business of providing charity to OS's. That being said, I agree that in the end, OSX may prove to be preferable to many when they get to have both. I think this will especially help Apple in the corporate and education markets too.

Hugely works. Apple's dictionary says so, so it must be right!
post #118 of 511
Actually, it's the best solution, and on more thought, I don't think we'll see anything really better from Apple in 10.5, certainly not virtualization.

Why?

This is *a migration path*, nothing more.

Notice that the Mac side can *read* NTFS, *but not write*. All data goes Windows -> Mac.

Notice that the Mac can write to FAT32, and data can be shared that way with Windows, but it's really not the best solution. Also requires some more work to set up that filespace.

Notice that the Windows side can't read or write HFS+.

Net result? Windows -> Mac for data. This isn't for flipping back and forth, this is for getting Windows users who simply feel they can't do without, on board as Mac users. Then they start moving stuff over on their own schedule. Then they stop booting Windows.

Full virtualization would mean a seamless environment, and then you get into the 'what will devs write to?' issue. This sidesteps that neatly.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #119 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by andrewcod
Did anyone else notice that in the installer, it doesn't erase all your data to repartition the hard drive? Perhaps this signals another new feature of Leapord!?

I like the live repartitioning. The opensource solution wasn't as elegant and required a reformat to partition. Losing your data or requiring a backup is a deal breaker for most users I'd think.


Anyone know if Apple's patched copy of XP includes an HFS+ driver? While it would be handy to grab files off your OS X partition, its also nice having it inaccessible since you know that some Windows worm can't hose your important stuff.
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
post #120 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by G_Warren
This is a risky game for Apple - on the one hand a lot of people will buy Macs, knowing that they can run that essential Windows only app occasionally, and eventually loving OSX so much that they barely use Windows (I can think of some friends in this category).
[/B]

Not too much of a risky game. If Apple hadn't done it someone else would have. At least by Apple doing it they have a chance of winning some good will points.

Apple is a hardware manufacturer above all, even if they do have one of the nicest OSs out there, IMHO.
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