Slashdot Log In
Apple Officially Releases Beta Dual Boot Loader
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Apr 05, 2006 09:35 AM
from the at-least-it-wasn't-an-april-fools-joke dept.
from the at-least-it-wasn't-an-april-fools-joke dept.
Slippy Douglas writes "Apparently, Apple has made good on one of the 30th anniversary product rumours. Apple today announced the Boot Camp Public Beta, which allows Intel Macs to easily and legally multi-boot. Boot Camp will be a standard feature in Mac OS X 10.5."
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Going To Boot Camp 531 comments
An anonymous reader writes "PC World has first impressions of what it's like to run Windows with Boot Camp, the recently announced official dual-boot software for the Intel Macs." From the article: "Back in Windows, I got right down to business and installed a few games to put the graphics and sound support to the test. The quick and dirty verdict on performance? Most impressive. Doom 3 and Far Cry both ran smoothly with high-end graphics options turned on. In both cases, I had to tweak visual settings manually, since the games automatically set themselves to very low settings. Far Cry, for example, autodetected very low settings, but it ran without a hitch when I bumped the resolution up to 1280 by 720, with all visual quality options set to 'High.'"
[+]
Boot Camp Flaw Leaves Some Users Fuming 391 comments
Karl Cocknozzle writes "Some users who chose to install Apple's recent beta-offering of Boot Camp without basic precautions (like a full backup) have found themselves unable to boot their Macs to OS X. In a discussion thread on Apple's technical support Web site, more than a dozen users reported that Boot Camp successfully partitioned their hard drive and allowed them to install a working version of Windows, but then would no longer allow them to switch back. The download-agreement page for Boot Camp contains the explicit warning that Boot Camp is still 'Beta' software, and would not be supported if problems arose. On the whole, it sounds like the number of affected users is quite small, but may reflect a common lack of knowledge of what a 'beta' release really is: Not ready for prime-time."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Wow, this is incredible (Score:5, Informative)
- Even the existing http://onmac.net/ [onmac.net] solution wasn't "illegal" or against any Apple or Microsoft license agreement - not saying the summary said that, but it kind of implied it might be
- The HUGE difference with Boot Camp is that it includes Windows XP driver profiles for Apple-specific hardware - including video drivers! Hello games and video intensive Windows software!
- Another big difference is that it includes a live repartitioning tool so the drive doesn't have to be reformatted to install Windows as the current solution requires
- And, it wraps everything up in a nice "setup assistant"-like interface
- It does burn a custom Windows XP installation disc (no, this does not violate any Microsoft or Windows license agreement, as making custom Windows installation discs has been routine in IT shops for years)
- Currently, it looks like it supports only Windows XP SP2, not any multi-disc XP-based installations (or other non-Windows OSes), but since Media Center is already working with the other solution by making a custom installation disc, I have no doubts that it could work with this as well
It's pretty incredible that Apple has decided to do this, to say the least.
However, the true benefit for many people won't come from dual-booting, but from running Windows (or any other x86 OS) in a virtualization environment alongside OS X with no dual booting or rebooting needed.
Virtualization company Parallels [parallels.com] announced that it will be bringing its Parallels Workstation virtualization product to Intel-based Macs [techworld.com]. Parallels is a hypervisor-based (with a kernel module) virtual machine solution already shipping for Windows and Linux, and is the first desktop virtualization product to support Intel VT/Vanderpool CPU "partitioning". It's also only $50. Parallels also has a long list of officially supported guest OSes [parallels.com], and that's just the ones that are *officially* supported. So either way, we'll have a nice dual boot solution AND a nice virtualization solution!
So Boot Camp will be standard with Leopard...great. What about the thing that a lot of us actually want, virtualization from Apple, rumored to be in Leopard [macrumors.com]? And not just virtualization to run x86 OSes, but to also run multiple instances of Intel-variants of Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server (*as well* as any other x86 OS)? Now THAT would be the holy grail. Desktop virtualization for things like Windows and Linux/BSD environments, and server virtualization for multiple Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server instances on a single box.
Since Apple has shown it's been officially willing to acknowledge the alternate OS/Windows universe on Intel-based Macs, I actually have a lot more hope for native, integrated virtualization in Leopard as well!
Re:Wow, this is incredible (Score:5, Informative)
No, it burns a drivers disk. You still install from the MS install disk.
-jcr
Parent
Re:Wow, this is incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
In my opinion, the existance of this tool only strengthens the rumour. If you're going to run a virtual Windows, you still need to have an actual installation of it lying around somewhere. Windows won't run from an HFS+ drive, it will need its own NTFS set-up somewhere - this tool will let you create such a set-up, ready to be dual-booted today and virtualised tomorrow.
Cheers,
Ian
Parent
Re:Wow, this is incredible (Score:5, Funny)
--jeffk++
Parent
Re:Wow, this is incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a move specifically calculated to appeal to Windows users, and to increase Mac OS X marketshare and usage (and thus Mac OS X software development), period.
This isn't about Apple "switching to Windows" or becoming yet another Windows PC manufacturer. In fact, it's the furthest thing from it.
Parent
Honestly, why bother? (Score:5, Funny)
April Fools? (Score:5, Funny)
Doh! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Doh! (Score:5, Funny)
-jcr
Parent
Well, There Goes My Business Model (Score:5, Funny)
weird (Score:5, Funny)
Re:weird (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
They even made the windows logo better. (Score:5, Funny)
It's only half of the solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Being able to run MacOS X and Windows, at native speeds, will rock my Jesus.
No more apologising for a Mac's inability to play games. W00t.
Uh, someone explain this please? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you buy an Intel-based Mac, what is illegal about dual-booting another OS on it in the first place, hmmmm?
Apple keeps XP at arms' length (Score:5, Insightful)
Also eyebrow-raising, Apple's take on the XP logo:
http://images.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/images/pa
What will Mac developers think about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Too good not to share (from the website) (Score:5, Funny)
Excuse me while I burn a little karma. I loved this bit from the web page:
Macs use an ultra-modern industry standard technology called EFI to handle booting. Sadly, Windows XP, and even the upcoming Vista, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS. But with Boot Camp, the Mac can operate smoothly in both centuries.
How dare they ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Legally Multiboot? (Score:5, Informative)
Makes me want to pick up that Macbook Pro now!
Parent
Re:Legally Multiboot? (Score:5, Informative)
The 83MB is not the bootloader. It's the EFI module and the Windows drivers for the Apple hardware that you have to burn to CD to install in Windows after you get it going. Read more slowly next time.
Parent
Re:Legally Multiboot? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, it's the virtual ugly stick!
Parent
Front Line Report (Score:5, Interesting)
I pay for OS X, because it's relatively suck-free. Windows installs grow on trees.
Why would I ditch OS X? If I wanted a free system I'd go back to Linux.
Parent
Re:and when (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason for Apple not allowing XP booting would be if Apple were truly scared. If it thought that OS X wasn't up to snuff and the OS X applications (iLife, iWork et al) were lame, then it should shy away from Windows booting. Instead it is trusting its technology and giving its users more options.
People who like OS X will continue to buy Macs. People who like Windows *may* now buy a Mac, and learn about OS X
The only real potential downside I see is that app writers get one more excuse not to write Mac apps, but to be honest, I don't see a substantial shift in that from today; views are already well entrenched.
Parent