or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple's Boot Camp sees quiet update
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Boot Camp sees quiet update

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
Apple Computer this week quietly released an update to its Boot Camp software for running Microsoft Corp.'s Windows XP operating system on Intel-based Macs.

The new version -- listed as Boot Camp 1.0.2 -- is available as an 84.3MB download from Apple's Boot Camp Web site.

In posting the update, Apple offered no documentation or release notes. It's therefore unclear precisely what changes have been made to the software over the previous release.

Since Boot Camp is categorized as "beta" software, Apple does not offer any technical support to users.

Apple announced Boot Camp on April 5th, saying the software would beÂ*a feature of ÂLeopard, the company's next major release of Mac OS X.
post #2 of 24
Am I the only one who expects BootCamp to be forgotten about forever when Leopard is released? (with the exception of non-Leopard intel users)
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 #3 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by Ireland
Am I the only one who expects BootCamp to be forgotten about forever when Leopard is released? (with the exception of non-Leopard intel users)

Yes.
post #4 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by Ireland
Am I the only one who expects BootCamp to be forgotten about forever when Leopard is released? (with the exception of non-Leopard intel users)

The name may change but Phillip Schiller recently confirmed that there will be "No virtualization in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, our solution is dual boot"

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/we...omments/10128/

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07...smac/index.php
post #5 of 24
"No virtualization in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, our solution is dual boot"

You can't actually believe this. How many times has Apple said no to something and then turned around 6 months later and made it reality?
post #6 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by bdkennedy1
"No virtualization in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, our solution is dual boot"

You can't actually believe this. How many times has Apple said no to something and then turned around 6 months later and made it reality?

Firstly, Schillers comment "Absolutely Not" is pretty specific and it is true that R&D costs would be enormous.

Secondly, It doesn't make sense for Apple to include virtualization. It would dis-courage developers from developing OSX specific apps. Do you really want all of your apps looking like Windows apps? I don't.

Thirdly, Apple is promoting "Paralells," as a viable third-party virtualization solution. They wouldn't do this if they were truly planning a virtualization solution themselves.

Fourthly, the legal issue of running Windows apps without Windows. Does Apple actually have the legal right to use WIndows kernel (edit: API?) Whether they do or not, it smells like a big MS vs. Apple legal battle to me. If Apple did this, they would essentially be wiping out the need for consumers to purchase and use Microsofts flagship product. Micorosoft would not take this sitting down.
And ultimately, I believe Microsoft would win in the courts. I honestly don't think Apple will go there.
post #7 of 24
Well, yesterday was Tuesday. I guess this was our obligatory Tuesday release for the week.

I expect Boot Camp will be a part of Leopard (for Intel Macs only), but it will probably be integrated into the OS and considered a technology, with a name change, rather than a separate app.
post #8 of 24
I've looked at lots of different sites and they seem to think that the update is for the new educational iMac, could it be for drivers for it?

I'm not sure whether Apple will do virtulisation. I know that you cannot trust what anyone says, as they can/will change their minds (Jobs and video?), but Parallels has established itself as a viable option. If anything Apple snaps them up/partners with them.
post #9 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by Craigb6
I'm not sure whether Apple will do virtulisation. I know that you cannot trust what anyone says, as they can/will change their minds (Jobs and video?), but Parallels has established itself as a viable option. If anything Apple snaps them up/partners with them.

Jobs, never said NO to video. He said they didn't feel the time was right because there was no content available for video.. He was right. However, as soon as he was able to line up the tv networks to get some content available, wella, enter iPod video.

Phill Schiller's comment was very different. He flat out said ABSOLUTELY NOT to virtualization. Thats a big difference from what Jobs said about video.
post #10 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by solsun
Firstly, Schillers comment "Absolutely Not" is pretty specific and it is true that R&D costs would be enormous.

Secondly, It doesn't make sense for Apple to include virtualization. It would dis-courage developers from developing OSX specific apps. Do you really want all of your apps looking like Windows apps? I don't.

Thirdly, Apple is promoting "Paralells," as a viable third-party virtualization solution. They wouldn't do this if they were truly planning a virtualization solution themselves.

I would think that argument three contradicts argument one. I don't see any indication of how big the Parallels company is, but it seemed to come out of nowhere, I would assume it to be a tiny company relative to Apple. The second argument makes sense, but has a bit of a double-edged sword, some might feel resigned to just running Windows XP. Relative to Parallels, Boot Camp is only useful if you absolutely need every bit of the graphics performance.

The fourth argument, I don't think anyone is suggesting running Windows without the Windows OS. Boot Camp needs this, Parallels needs it, so there's no reason to suggest that a hypothetical Leopard feature wouldn't.
post #11 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by solsun
Jobs, never said NO to video. He said they didn't feel the time was right because there was no content available for video.. He was right. However, as soon as he was able to line up the tv networks to get some content available, wella, enter iPod video.

Phill Schiller's comment was very different. He flat out said ABSOLUTELY NOT to virtualization. Thats a big difference from what Jobs said about video.

Jobs said Video is "the wrong direction to go", "the screens are too small" and competitors to the iPod putting R&D into providing video are "digging in the wrong place." Then in Oct. 2005 what does Apple Release??? The 5G iPod with "VIDEO" capability...
post #12 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by solsun

Fourthly, the legal issue of running Windows apps without Windows. Does Apple actually have the legal right to use WIndows kernel?

They don't need the kernel, just the APIs. They could put some serious muscle behind WINE, which does exactly this. If you develop wholly from an API and work backwards, there are no viable legal issues. That's not to say Microsoft wouldn't sue, and possibly even get a temporary injunction, but they'd lose (although perhaps they'd delay things long enough to get people hooked on the new Vista APIs.)

That's not to say it would be a good idea on Apple's part. I think their current plan is going okay. If they wanted to adopt a Windows API, they should integrate Mono/.NET, not Win32.
post #13 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
I would think that argument three contradicts argument one. I don't see any indication of how big the Parallels company is, but it seemed to come out of nowhere, I would assume it to be a tiny company relative to Apple. The second argument makes sense, but has a bit of a double-edged sword, some might feel resigned to just running Windows XP. Relative to Parallels, Boot Camp is only useful if you absolutely need every bit of the graphics performance.

The fourth argument, I don't think anyone is suggesting running Windows without the Windows OS. Boot Camp needs this, Parallels needs it, so there's no reason to suggest that a hypothetical Leopard feature wouldn't.

Let me clarify, the Parallels virtualiztion method works because it is a virtualization which still requires Windows, hence MS is still happy.

However, with Apple, I was referring to the rumors floating around about the alternate method of Apple using the Windows kernel (edit: API,) so that the need for Windows is eliminated altogether. Essentially meaning that Windows apps would run without Windows in Leopard.
post #14 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by Booga
They don't need the kernel, just the APIs. They could put some serious muscle behind WINE, which does exactly this. If you develop wholly from an API and work backwards, there are no viable legal issues. That's not to say Microsoft wouldn't sue, and possibly even get a temporary injunction, but they'd lose (although perhaps they'd delay things long enough to get people hooked on the new Vista APIs.)

That's not to say it would be a good idea on Apple's part. I think their current plan is going okay. If they wanted to adopt a Windows API, they should integrate Mono/.NET, not Win32.

Thanks for the clarification, API is what I meant. And still, whether Apple has the legal right to use this or not is debatable.. I still see Microsoft slapping a huge unfair business practice lawsuit on Apple if they did this.
post #15 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by MauiMac
Jobs said Video is "the wrong direction to go", "the screens are too small" and competitors to the iPod putting R&D into providing video are "digging in the wrong place." Then in Oct. 2005 what does Apple Release??? The 5G iPod with "VIDEO" capability...

The wrong direction to go, BECAUSE there was no CONTENT AVAILABLE at the time. I'm not disagreeing with this. I am saying that Jobs never flat out said there wouldn't be an iPod video.. The timing just wasn't right.

As soon as he was able to get the TV networks to agree. They put a bigger screen on the iPod and the rest is history.

It's still a very different story from what Schiller is saying about Windows virtualization.
post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by solsun
The name may change but Phillip Schiller recently confirmed that there will be "No virtualization in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, our solution is dual boot"

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/we...omments/10128/

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07...smac/index.php

Why did you cite two links here? The first one is a repost of the second. Also, the original article is quoting someone quoting Schiller, it's not a direct quote.
post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
Why did you cite two links here? The first one is a repost of the second.

Your choice, long or short version. Mac daily news or MacWorld.

Quote:
Also, the original article is quoting someone quoting Schiller, it's not a direct quote. [/B]

Yes, I think that's clear regardless of which link you read. The writer is quoting Wolf on his discussion with Schiller.
post #18 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by solsun
Firstly, Schillers comment "Absolutely Not" is pretty specific and it is true that R&D costs would be enormous.

Secondly, It doesn't make sense for Apple to include virtualization. It would dis-courage developers from developing OSX specific apps. Do you really want all of your apps looking like Windows apps? I don't.

Thirdly, Apple is promoting "Paralells," as a viable third-party virtualization solution. They wouldn't do this if they were truly planning a virtualization solution themselves.

Fourthly, the legal issue of running Windows apps without Windows. Does Apple actually have the legal right to use WIndows kernel (edit: API?) Whether they do or not, it smells like a big MS vs. Apple legal battle to me. If Apple did this, they would essentially be wiping out the need for consumers to purchase and use Microsofts flagship product. Micorosoft would not take this sitting down.
And ultimately, I believe Microsoft would win in the courts. I honestly don't think Apple will go there.

Right on

Biggest reaon I think is because its simply not in Apple's best interests to develop virtualization, leave that to the 3rd parties.
post #19 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by Booga
They don't need the kernel, just the APIs. They could put some serious muscle behind WINE, which does exactly this. If you develop wholly from an API and work backwards, there are no viable legal issues. That's not to say Microsoft wouldn't sue, and possibly even get a temporary injunction, but they'd lose (although perhaps they'd delay things long enough to get people hooked on the new Vista APIs.)

Perfect! So MS would sue Apple for reverse engineering their technology? Just as MS-DOS was a reverse engineered PC-DOS? I bet Steve would rather not stand up in court at all but oh for the chance to para-phrase Gates & turn his own 'with a we're guilty of the same thing' argument against him (re: the GUI-napping from Xerox).

McD
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by McDave
Perfect! So MS would sue Apple for reverse engineering their technology? Just as MS-DOS was a reverse engineered PC-DOS? I bet Steve would rather not stand up in court at all but oh for the chance to para-phrase Gates & turn his own 'with a we're guilty of the same thing' argument against him (re: the GUI-napping from Xerox).

McD

If it was illegal to sell reverse engineered Windows enviornments, the WINE project and commercial offshoots like CrossoverOffice would have been sued out of existance, MS would much rather stomp out the small frys like CodeWeaversInc than have a legal (and PR) battle with Mr Jobs.

The fact that CodeWeavers and the wine project as a whole still exists shows that MS has no legal foot to stand on: hell, Apple could just do to Wine what it did to KHTML/Konquerer and build a product around it.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #21 of 24
I can't believe that people think it would be smart for Apple to include WINE and officially support it.

Firstly, API emulation is fragile. Meaning, any new APIs or slight changes to the behavior of existing APIs and things break. It also takes a _lot_ of work to determine the behavior of existing APIs in every possible usage scenario when you don't have access to the original source and/or detailed behavioral documentation.

Secondly, when things do break (and they will at some point), is Apple going to provide tech support for all the apps which break with them? Or when a user complains that some obscure Windows app doesn't work with WINE? It'd be a tech support (ie. financial) nightmare!

Don't get me wrong, I like the WINE project and have followed it's progress since the early days of it's development on Linux. But I personally don't think it's feasible for any company to sell it as a general-purpose emulation environment and then try to provide tech support for it. It definitely makes sense to bundle it with a single application that you're developing in-house, but not to sell/bundle it as a general-purpose solution.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #22 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by auxio
I can't believe that people think it would be smart for Apple to include WINE and officially support it.

Firstly, API emulation is fragile. Meaning, any new APIs or slight changes to the behavior of existing APIs and things break. It also takes a _lot_ of work to determine the behavior of existing APIs in every possible usage scenario when you don't have access to the original source and/or detailed behavioral documentation.

Secondly, when things do break (and they will at some point), is Apple going to provide tech support for all the apps which break with them? Or when a user complains that some obscure Windows app doesn't work with WINE? It'd be a tech support (ie. financial) nightmare!

Don't get me wrong, I like the WINE project and have followed it's progress since the early days of it's development on Linux. But I personally don't think it's feasible for any company to sell it as a general-purpose emulation environment and then try to provide tech support for it. It definitely makes sense to bundle it with a single application that you're developing in-house, but not to sell/bundle it as a general-purpose solution.

Agreed. Apple's solution is and should remain dual-boot, end of story. I want Apple to focus it's energy on OSX, leave the Windows emulation/virtualization to third parties.
post #23 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by bdkennedy1
"No virtualization in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, our solution is dual boot"

You can't actually believe this. How many times has Apple said no to something and then turned around 6 months later and made it reality?

Thats actually a much smarter stance to take, let other companies worry about tech support and trouble shooting virtualization programs. Also intergrating it into the OS might give OSX more flaws to viruses and whatever.

Apple doesn't need the trouble there are more than enough fair options on the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #24 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by solsun
Fourthly, the legal issue of running Windows apps without Windows. Does Apple actually have the legal right to use WIndows kernel (edit: API?)

I don't think copying the API is a legal issue. Consider, for instance, Wine, which allows you to run many Windows programs under Linux. As far as I know, the Wine folk have never gotten any flack over emulating the Windows API, and, in fact, even in the world of ridiculously stupid software patents we're seeing these days I haven't yet heard of any you-copied-my-API law suits (not saying there haven't been, just none I'm aware of). My impression is that APIs have long been considered "fair game" for anyone to try to copy and emulate.

At any rate, I'm inclined to take Phil Schiller at his word on this one and believe Apple isn't putting virtualization into Leopard. Not only would it discourage development of native OS X software, it would be a customer support nightmare since any Wine-like solution is going to be far from perfect.

What would be really nice would be the ability to switch between OS X and Windows under Boot Camp without a complete shut down/reboot cycle. If you could simply hibernate one OS and then wake the other one that would make switching OSes a whole lot more convenient and less disruptive. I'm still not sure, however, that Apple would be wild about making it so easy to switch to Windows because of the possible deterrent affect on OS X software development.

Since I'm happy using Parallels, I doubt I'll even mess around with Boot Camp myself. Since Parallels and Boot Camp currently can't share the same Windows image, I'd have to devote more drive space on my MBP's 120 GB drive than I'd care to for the purpose of maintaining two separate Windows environments.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple's Boot Camp sees quiet update