Apple's Boot Camp sees quiet update

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
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 Â?Leopard,Â? the company's next major release of Mac OS X.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    irelandireland Posts: 17,547member
    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)
  • Reply 2 of 23
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    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.
  • Reply 3 of 23
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    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
  • Reply 4 of 23
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member
    "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?
  • Reply 5 of 23
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    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.
  • Reply 6 of 23
    cubertcubert Posts: 728member
    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.
  • Reply 7 of 23
    craigb6craigb6 Posts: 16member
    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.
  • Reply 8 of 23
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    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.
  • Reply 9 of 23
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    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.
  • Reply 10 of 23
    mauimacmauimac Posts: 26member
    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...
  • Reply 11 of 23
    boogabooga Posts: 1,077member
    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.
  • Reply 12 of 23
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    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.
  • Reply 13 of 23
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    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.
  • Reply 14 of 23
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    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.
  • Reply 15 of 23
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    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.
  • Reply 16 of 23
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    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.
  • Reply 17 of 23
    deapeajaydeapeajay Posts: 909member
    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.
  • Reply 18 of 23
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,094member
    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
  • Reply 19 of 23
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    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.
  • Reply 20 of 23
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,960member
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.