Slashdot Log In
Apple Officially Releases Beta Dual Boot Loader
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Apr 05, 2006 08:35 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
[+]
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Apple Officially Releases Beta Dual Boot Loader
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 909 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:Legally Multiboot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the Apple Bootcamp [apple.com] page. Phrases like:
clearly indicate how Apple will be "bringing it" against Vista with Leopard. Apple is positioning Windows as the broken down, patched up, late again has-been with too many promises and too few benefits - but we'll do what Microsoft can't - get Windows running on new, nicer hardware in very little time. Apple makes Microsoft look like fools, especially by touting EFI and the fact that Windows STILL won't support it in Vista.
It's gonna be an awfully exciting year for Apple watchers.
Re:"ultra-modern industry standard technology" (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://nekobox.org/)
Just because you haven't heard of it until now doesn't mean it isn't established. It's been running in Itanium and a handful of x86 systems for over 5 years now.
The only real issue is calling it an "industry standard". More like a "good idea made real", but Apple is known for hyperbole.
Besides regarding Windows, isn't it true that, "running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it'll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world?" I would call it due diligence, warning prospective Mac users installing Windows XP that they will be opening their Windows PC to a whole world of vulnerabilities virtually unheard of on a Mac.
"Warning, consumption of alcohol by pregnant women can contribute to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome."
Would you say this statement is off because it is critical of alcohol manufacturers? Apple is stating a known truth and issuing a fair warning. It may not be nice or friendly, but it is true and it is useful for those Mac users who have never had to deal with spyware, viruses, or malware before.
Re:Legally Multiboot? (Score:5, Informative)
Makes me want to pick up that Macbook Pro now!
Re:Legally Multiboot? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://andreywarkentin.livejournal.com/)
Re:Legally Multiboot? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.macgeekery.com/)
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.
Re:Legally Multiboot? (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, this is incredible (Score:5, Informative)
(http://das.doit.wisc.edu/)
- 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)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 05 2006, @05:31AM)
No, it burns a drivers disk. You still install from the MS install disk.
-jcr
Re:Wow, this is incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.eruvia.org/)
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
Re:Wow, this is incredible (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.jdkoftinoff.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday July 15, @06:44PM)
--jeffk++
Re:Wow, this is incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://das.doit.wisc.edu/)
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.
Re:Wow, this is incredible (Score:4, Funny)
Inside source: this happened on the morning Microsoft announced delays to Vista.
The board meeting
So it's Tuesday morning at Apple. The boardroom is having another meeting about the future of the Macintosh. They're perusing the feedback over the unofficial port of Windows to the Mac, and considering the consequences. There's a whole bunch of things on the agenda. OS development is hard, and it's expensive. Their competitors, Sony and Lenevo, doesn't need to do it, and they're doing pretty well all in all. Plus, there's the whole break up plan. When Apple separates into Apple Macintosh Inc and iTunes Corp, how attractive will Apple Macintosh be as a take-over target? The whole move to Intel will be for naught if it hasn't made Dell and friends just a little more excited and comfortable they could fit the Macintosh into their lines.
Apple has some little development projects on the boil and has for some time. To begin with, it's pretty much completely reimplemented the Carbon APIs under Windows. Indeed, that's how iTunes and Quicktime are implemented. But, interestingly, so are the Cocoa APIs. They're all there, Apple never stopped developing them, even after it nixed WebObjects for that platform. It's also in need of certain features that would help it with the future. Apple has no "managed code" environment - it supported Java to a certain extent, but Cocoa never was a perfect fit for that. Apple's progress with .NET, unofficially, under Windows and OS X, is coming along surprisingly well.
As time has gone on, the notion of switching to Windows as the base platform really has gotten more and more plausable. There are still roadblocks, Apple needs Microsoft to provide them with a little more customizability of the UI. A switch to Windows without providing the essential Macintosh experience just wouldn't do. But, well, .NET, and Aero, are Microsoft's attempts to break with the past. Perhaps an OS built upon these APIs could, with Microsoft's help, look entirely like a Mac environment - with the right code, obviously. You don't want a Dell user flipping a registry switch and getting a Mac.
It's clear that whatever happens, OS X is doomed. Postings by MacRumors alumni arguing that the porting of Windows to the Mac spells disaster are read out, and largely agreed with. But the question then is - does Apple continue to pour money into OS X, or could Gates and Ballmer be ameanable to making the modifications needed to make Windows Vista the next Macintosh OS?
The phone call
Jobs picks up the phone and calls Gates. There's a brief discussion, and then the phone's put down. A few minutes later, the phone rings. It's Ballmer, Gates, and Allchin.
"We think we can do it, Steve" says Bill Gates. "I mean, this is a major thing for us. It's a coup, and I know you know we're thinking it. So we're going to help in any way we can."
Allchin interjects: "Funnily enough, from our end, the code's largely there. We need a bit more time. WinFS needs some work - we'd put it on hold, but if you're going to want Spotlight on this OS, we'll need to finish it. Sticking menus at the top of the screen and reordering them... that's easy stuff. We'd appreciate it if you ported your own Dock and Finder, you can keep that proprietary if you want."
Jobs smiles. "That's perfect for us. Means we keep control over the so-called Macintosh experience. That's really the only reason we've stuck with our own operating systems for so long."
Ballmer speaks next. "Well, I'm looking at the timings, we can probably get things to you in a service pack for Vista, perhaps in April or May of 2007?"
"January", says Jobs. "It's got to be January. I want to go to MacWorld, and announce a new operating system, Mac OS W, that brings the best of the Mac, and the best of Microsoft. And I want to tell people "It's shipping today.", it's important, for our credibility and everything."
There's silence on the other
Re:Wow, this is incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 05 2006, @05:31AM)
Exactly. It's all about dropping a barrier to entry, just like when Apple shipped X11 a couple of years ago.
This move will get Apple many more hardware sales by removing a bludgeon that IT departments routinely use to veto Mac purchases.
-jcr
The end of OS X (Score:5, Funny)
Mac OS XI -- Spinal Tap
This one goes to 11!
A new lawsuit with Apple Records will start in anticipation of version 11.4 being nick named the "Fab Four".
Re:Wow, this is incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Apple is the only computer manufacturer with enough control over the OS to distinguish themselves in the market. Apple is currently experiencing tremendous growth in Mac shipments because of this.
4) Stock prices are a fun game, but not a strong indicator of corporate strategy. Apple still makes more revenue from Macs than iPods.
5) All Mac software development firms of any importance are migrating their products to Intel.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.smashcat.org/personal/)
Yeah, it's the virtual ugly stick!
Re:FP? and Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
One possibility is that there are many people who might be interested in switching to Apple, but won't, because they have a few pieces of software they aren't willing to give up in order to make the switch. This allows those users to switch, but still have access to those pieces of software. (I personally feel that virtuallization is a better route for this, since who wants to have to have to reboot? Still, this at least gives the user an option).
How this actually plays out is anyone's guess. Clearly, Apple doesn't want to become just another Windows hardware vendor. They therefore must position this as a value added to their OS, not the other way around.
Re:FP? and Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.phillyshreds.com/)
remember the iPod timeline. iTunes for the Mac existed for a while before the iPod was released. i forget how long it was, but for a while Apple did not make software for it to work with MS Windows, they suggested a 3rd party app. they eventually released iTunes for MS Windows, and the public theory was that they thought it would help sell a lot more iPods, and possibly show MS users how nice Apple software can be. anyone running Windows can download and use iTunes for free if they own an iPod or not.
maybe they learned from the iPod experience that some people are really tied to windows for one reason or another (at least some of the time). there are people out there that would buy a Mac for the hardware, and run MS Windows 99% of the time. not too many i am sure, but there are some. the rumor sites had some mentions of Apple hooking up with some hardware benchmarking people that previously did stuff for windows. maybe Apple wants to try to run MS Windows faster than some Dell or whatever AND be able to boot the Mac OS. it really is the end of the "Apples to oranges" argument of PPC vs x86.
i also don't see why this boot loader can't support some form of Linux, though i don't see Apple going out on a limb for it. holding down the option (alt) key during startup boot loader has been in the Mac OS for years. it would show you all the partitions with a valid OS install. i used to use it a lot when i had to bounce between OS 9 and OS X. it's easier than opening system prefs, selecting a startup disk just to do something for an hour in OS 9 then reverse the situation to go back to OS X.
Honestly, why bother? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Honestly, why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope this goes too. Now one can safely "sneak" Macs into workplace. And when people see that MacOSX is equally suitable for developing/running business software, i.e. when "Macs are for graphic designers" meme starts dying... That could be valuable. Especially since I guess MacOSX will run circles around Vista on same hardware regarding speed, capability and general well-builtness.
April Fools? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.geekrants.com/eric/blog)
Doh! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://127.0.0.1/)
Re:Doh! (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 05 2006, @05:31AM)
-jcr
Narf and Blanka (Score:5, Funny)
(http://tumbleweed.smugmug.com/)
Well, There Goes My Business Model (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/~eldavojohn/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 16, @03:26PM)
Too late for the prize... (Score:3, Funny)
weird (Score:5, Funny)
Re:weird (Score:5, Funny)
You damn southerners (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Friday August 17, @05:34AM)
They even made the windows logo better. (Score:5, Funny)
It's only half of the solution (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://urban.cream.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday December 07 2005, @09:24AM)
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)
(http://kim.biyn.com/)
If you buy an Intel-based Mac, what is illegal about dual-booting another OS on it in the first place, hmmmm?
Re:Uh, someone explain this please? (Score:5, Funny)
When I try to boot it on my G4, it just says "illegal instruction". Maybe that's what they're talking about.
Apple keeps XP at arms' length (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://squatcom.com/)
Also eyebrow-raising, Apple's take on the XP logo:
http://images.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/images/pa
Re:Apple keeps XP at arms' length (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, it's a black diamond.
Leave it to Apple to re-stylize the Windows logo to look better and be more informative.
Re:Apple keeps XP at arms' length (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://peacefinder.net/ | Last Journal: Wednesday October 24, @04:06PM)
First, it's a very nifty dodge for the copyright and trademark issue. While MS would be nuts to sue them over use of Microsoft logos in this context, Apple has completely dodged the issue. (They've generally been very careful to avoid any potential copyright issues in the whole process, especially by emphasizing the need for a legal, non-upgrade XP CD.) Microsoft is left with no grounds to complain.
Secondly, the MacOS logo is still color in Boot Camp, but the other logo is greyscale. One is the new hotness, the other is old and busted. Graphic design messages don't get more clear.
Apple has just totally counted coup on Microsoft. I bet the entire Apple marketing department will be useless for the rest of the week... none of them will be able to stop laughing.
it's from iGod, it HAS to be good ;) (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday April 16 2007, @01:18PM)
"hey, genius, I can run Windows under two layers of emulation faster than your freakin' routine runs native. optimize or die! I got Pagemaker running without panics and you don't!"
so since there are enterprising uber-nerds with vista alphas running on the Intel macs now, Apple probably figured it was time to protect their kernel and boot loader from hacks and put their own flexible one out.
What will Mac developers think about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.seizurerobots.com/)
Re:What will Mac developers think about this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now with a virtualization solution, Apple would really be in trouble. OS/2 trouble, that is. People switching mac-win-mac all the time really removes any incentive to port an app to the mac.
Well, we'll see...
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.
Re:Too good not to share (from the website) (Score:5, Funny)
Word to the Wise
Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it'll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft Windows security fixes.
Re:Apple's page is not completely correct (Score:4, Informative)
(http://sakabatou.net/)
Re:designed for Windows Vista (Score:5, Insightful)
The Machavellian aspect is this: a significant fraction of those dual-boot Macs will get their Windows partitions infected by some nasty malware or virus, thus FORCING USERS TO BOOT INTO LOVING AND SENSUOUS ARMS OF MAC OS X. And as we all know, once you go Mac, you DON'T GO BACK.
How dare they ... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://dr-tools.sourceforge.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:27AM)
In a lab setting... (Score:3, Interesting)
My own situation: I'm a faculty member with both research and teaching labs in computer security, where we often muck about with various settings and try different combinations of machines on a network. If I could have one piece of hardware which would boot (without fighting with it too much) Mac OS X, different Windows flavors, Linux, the BSD's, and Solaris x86, that would be fantastic. Right now I have separate (and seriously aging) hardware for Apple stuff. Stick a 300 gig drive on that baby and have a bunch of partitions.... hmmmm...
When it's time for a lab upgrade, this will be something I have to look at very seriously. The "official blessing" does mean something to me -- I wouldn't want to invest in 15 machines for a lab and then have Apple come back later and throw in incompatibilities because they decide they don't like the unofficial multiboot solutions (think about what they've done with the iPod and Real as far as incompatibilities).
Now if that hardware would just support virtualization (Xen or something) to make this even easier, I'd be one seriously happy camper.
Filesystems used? Dual vs concurrent booting? (Score:5, Informative)
HFS+: OS X uses it; XP doesn't recognize it
FAT32: Both OS X and XP can read and write to it, but it has limits in partition size and doesn't allow for files larger than 4GB (no DVD backup for you!)
NTFS: Both OS X and XP can read it, but OS X can't write to it
One solution is MacDrive [softpedia.com], which allows Windows to read and write to HFS+. But I'd rather that OS X be able to write to NTFS.
Virtual PC lets you move stuff back and forth, but it has inferior performance and some software doesn't work with it (Thayer's guide to birds of North America [thayerbirding.com] doesn't run under VPC, for example). And of course VPC doesn't work on the Intel Macs at all.
Still, being able to run Windows is *excellent* news for Apple and for OS X. It means more people will buy Macs because many need to run Windows for specific applications but would rather use OS X for everything else. If they can address the filesystem incompatibility and get the OSs to run concurrently [techworld.com] without any performance hit, Apple's market share will skyrocket.
captive NTFS (Score:4, Interesting)
No Dual-Boot! VMWare! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.javaguy.org/)
Look... (Score:5, Interesting)
That I can use my Mac to boot natively into XP to use that app is a huge win; I don't need to keep a POS Dell around just for that one app on Windows. Plus, assuming the MacBook is built like my PowerBook, it'll work for me for years as a war horse that can take the punishment I have inflicted on it (hello round-the-world photo shoot, using the PB as my darkroom and portfolio case)
Remember, Apple is a hardware company...they make real stuff that comes in padded boxes. That they can make both kick-ass hardware, *and* a kick-ass operating system doesn't change the fact that, rightly or wrongly, Windows and Dell are still the kings of the hill. Apple has saved me from having to buy a new PC *and* a new copy of Windows with it. That's less money for Microsoft and Dell, and more for Apple (when I get my MacBook).
Seems like a pretty smart move to me.
Security vendors could take advantage of this (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Sunday August 20 2006, @09:16PM)
Great news for MS and death of Mac Office (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://emiboston.com/)
And why should MS continue to develop Mac Office? For $125 (student/teacher) you can buy the Windows OS and then run the PC version of Office. The same is true for all the other "fringe" software; just add $200 to cost and bundle it with the Windows OS, then every software vendor can claim Mac compatibility.
In the end this will just increase MS share of the OS market and decrease the availability of Mac OS software.
This is the fastest XP install I've ever done. (Score:3, Informative)
I need to run Cakewalk's Sonar to deal with some projects I'm recording. I generally use Ableton Live in OSX, but I need to be able to open Cakewalk bundles too. Hey look, now I can....
Thank you, Apple.
In the last few days (Score:3, Interesting)
Some thoughts on Apple's strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
> Also, just heard a rumor that XCode is going to be able to create winders binaries.
Yeah, I heard that rumor of the yellow-box's revival as well. I haven't yet digested the implications fully.
> Why buy a Mac for $3k to run winders when they can buy a dull for a lot less.
Now, let's be fair. You know perfectly well you can buy a decent new Intel Mac with the latest OS, lots of free software, a warranty and support for only $600. No, it's not ideal for everyone, but it's a very reasonable low-end solution.
> To run Mac apps? Why should a developer write for Mac OS X when Macs can run winders now?
Well, if you can write one program in Xcode and it runs automagically under both windoze and OS X (given YB compatability), you've added support for a popular and growing platform at little additional cost. That assumes you've moved your windows development environment over to Xcode, which is a pretty huge (and presently inaccurate) assumption. However, Apple has mindshare and really pretty apps, and from what I hear, Xcode is pretty slick. It might very well be worth the while of small-to-midsized developers to jump over if it becomes available.
Here's another consideration. There are A LOT of potential switchers who currently must also keep windows around for one or two pieces of legacy SW, or for driver flashing, or for occasional compatability with clients/collegues/etc., or for GAMING, or for whatever. Now they can consolidate to one computer and simplify their lives. Significantly, only Apple sells such a computer.
> I see this as a dangerous gamble. The rewards could be great, but it could further marginalize Apple.
A gamble, yes, but I'm pretty sure this has been Apple's mid-term strategy for quite a while. People with much better business sense than you and I have surely been considering all the implications for longer than we have.
This is a much different situation than IBM had with OS/2. People frequently don't like windows as much as they like OS X (once they've used both). There are many very good apps (some included free) for OS X, and it can also run almost any of the now-ubiquitous FOSS that's available for Unix/BSD/Linux. OS X has an arguably better user experience than windows, and it's "teh pretty". As mentioned above, Apple provides a very good free cross-platform (soon to include YB?) development environment. The HW that Apple sells is comparatively high quality and reasonably priced for what is included. Also, OS X tends to feel as fast or faster than windows on the same (currently shipping) HW. None of this was true for IBM at the time.
> Besides, I wonder what m$ thinks of this. They may like it as it opens up a new client base. Or not.
If they're smart, I suspect they are wetting themselves right about now. Although this is potentially good for them in the short term, it is another clear signal that Apple is engaging in a stealth campaign to take market share from windows. Once people get used to the idea that something should Just Work(TM), they tend to quickly tire of substandard products. With a big enough market penetration for OS X PLUS Unix/BSD/Linux (could be anywhere from 10-25%), microsoft effectively loses its desktop monopoly, and has to compete ON QUALITY. This is something they are both organizationally and technologically ill-equipped to do. If they manage to do so anyway, everybody wins.
The future looks very promising indeed if you look at the situation through that lense.
"We don't support MacOS X -Please install Windows" (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, now vendors are just going to tell these people "Please install Windows" and they won't feel guilty about it. After all the users don't have to throw anything away and are actually ADDING something to their system. And if they could afford that expensive Mac then they surly can afford a copy of Microsoft Windows. And with Apple fully supporting this now there is no excuse to defend against having to install Windows.
I hear all the folks that think this is cool because now they can run all of their Windows only games - but they should have been demanding that companies port to MacOS X. Now they will likely never see another game for MacOS X again now that they can be expected to "Just install Windows".
And I don't even want to think how this will affect the Web now that Macs can run that old obsolete piece of trash IE browser that so many moron web designers seem to expect people to have. "You want to browse our site using a Mac? Please install Windows and use IE 6!"
Time for more complaints! (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://home.alphalin...ex.html?slashdot.org)
1. Someone finds a way to boot a totally new environment on a Mac, allowing people to run applications they couldn't otherwise. Although this is an amazing technical achievement, people complain that you have to dual-boot.
2. Someone finds a way to avoid dual-booting by getting that totally new environment at the same time as the Mac (e.g. virtualisation). People complain that they have to keep switching between the two, and it would be better to integrate the two environments, for example, having the windows from both environments sharing the same desktop.
3. Someone finds a way to integrate the two environments. People complain that the totally new environment isn't "Mac-like" enough, although by definition it can't be. Short of porting things to Mac OS X (defeating the purpose of this), it's an intractable problem.
With Windows XP, we're up to stage 1 - dual booting.
With X11, we're up to stage 3. Stage 1 was dual booting into a Linux environment; stage 2 was XDarwin; stage 3 is Apple's current X11 and window manager. but instead of basking in the glow that is thousands of cool free software apps, people complain that things like OpenOffice.org or Evolution or GAIM, running in X11, is terrible and un-Mac-like. (That's a generalisation; I'm not saying that you're complaining.)
All those complaints about Apple not providing a virtualisation solution, are just complaining that we're not yet at stage 2. Once Apple provides that, those people may be satisfied; but a whole different group of people will start complaining that we're not at stage 3. And once we get there, yet another group of people will complain that we are at stage 3.
Of course, this is all worthwhile; I'm not saying otherwise. In fact, I'm hugely grateful just to get stage 1. But no matter what you do, people will always find something to complain about. (Hmm, that's nowhere as insightful as I thought it was.)
Nope. (Score:3, Informative)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 05 2006, @05:31AM)
-jcr
Re:Linux? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Linux? (Score:4, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/~tpgp)
You've been able to boot linux on the intel macs [pcpro.co.uk] for some time now.
And it looks like someone has ubuntu running on them allready [livejournal.com]
However, I think you're not going to have everything working perfectly, I think the video drivers will only be 2d, your remote won't work, nor will the CD eject button, etc etc etc.
If you've got a bit of money & just want ubuntu, buy hardware from a vendor who supports linux.
If you want OS X and Ubuntu, still buy hardware from a vendor who supports linux - but also wait until you can buy copies of OS X tiger that are not tied to the new macbook or iMacs & install that on your generic hardware.
Re:Linux? (Score:4, Informative)
(http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 07, @07:05AM)
The reason for this is that all IPC, all thread-related operations, and many system calls rely on the Mach port mechanism. Sending a Mach message requires a lot of checking of port rights, and so is The cost of a Mach message send is about ten times the cost of a traditional UNIX system call.
For most applications, this won't be a problem, but as soon as you start swapping OS X slows right down (because the VM subsystem is in the Mach part of the kernel and uses ports extensively). Likewise, if you are running something very I/O intensive, something that does a lot of thread locking, or anything that uses a lot of system calls, then it will be much slower on OS X than Linux, BSD, or pretty much any sane kernel implementation (including second-generation microkernels, such as L4).
Mach is the nicest kernel design I've seen, on paper. It is elegant, and nicely abstracted. Unfortunately, this comes at a significant cost, which can be relatively easily avoided.
[1] A volume renderer that made extensive use of mmap and madvise for handling very large datasets.
Re:Linux? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.fredshome.org/)
Why a Unix user would buy a Mac desktop machine is beyond me though. Unless he has a need for some piece of software that is bound to Mac OS (the photo management thing that was recently released looks nice).
Of course there are exceptions everywhere
Re:Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.arbitraryconstant.com/)
Performance: Linux has significant performance advantages covered in more detail in another post. This isn't necessarily a raw speed issue, you might be trying to profile your code and want results from a system that's similar to where the code will run in production.
Software availability: This doesn't mean Macs have less software (as they have stuff Linux doesn't as well), only that they have different software. There are plenty of things that are only available or better available on Linux. The big example is Java, the Apple version on OS X isn't 100% compatible with the official version (has some extra bugs and stuff), and the Apple implementation typically releases new versions late and only for updated OS versions.
Compatibility: MacOS isn't binary compatible or source compatible with Linux. If you're doing development for Linux, you usually need Linux. Even though it's possible to port software between the two, there's different platform-specific APIs (eg kqueue vs epoll) that make it impossible to move development entirely to the other platform.
Features: Linux and Linux specific software has powerful features that MacOS doesn't. One is LVMs, which allow dynamic resizing and snapshots for filesystems. Apparently commercial virtualization software will be available in the future for MacOS, but at the moment there's nothing to match Xen or VMWare.
None of this means Linux is "better", only that it's useful for different things. If you do the things where Linux is better suited, but want to retain the ability to do things for which MacOS is better suited, then that's a very compelling reason to dual-boot.
What?? (Score:5, Informative)
Front Line Report (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://cheeseburgerbrown.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 02 2005, @02:45PM)
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.
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.
This just in ... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.jonathanwatmough.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday February 04 2006, @11:25AM)
How's that for some great numbers ???
Converse (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I think what's being said around Apple is "If you can't join them, beat them." Many people here are focused on the "war" between Mac OS and Microsoft, forgetting that Apple is mostly a hardware company and Microsoft is mostly a software company. Recall that Microsoft developed software for Macintosh first (MS Word) before porting it to MS DOS/Windows.
Apple's Boot Camp is a knife in the hearts of other hardware makers: Dell, Gateway, HP, Sony. The belief (warranted or not) that Apple has the best computer hardware bar none is widespread and even formerly independent Alienware is going to have a hard time competing with a top-of-the-line quad core Intel machine from Apple.
With Apple Boot Camp, Microsoft will keep making the money from Windows bundling and sales it always has (Apple Boot Camp also solidifies Microsoft's Office stronghold), and Apple will continue making money from hardware sales. The possible change under Apple Boot Camp is that Microsoft may increase its sales, especially among Mac OS diehards who won't touch PCs. I worked in a PC shop from 1997-2001 and I cannot stand Microsoft Windows. However, I would purchase a university-provided license to dual boot Windows Vista. I'm betting there are at least a few hundred thousand Mac users just like me.
Dell now has real reason to be worried as they can't survive on that razor-thin margin without huge volume, and I'm betting sales of Apple hardware are going to spike very soon.
Few Quick Notes (Score:5, Insightful)
First if you run OSX & XP side by side, OSX highlights windows short comings, like people b i t c h about finder, but they've never really had to use explorer in a pressured environment.
Also when booting to XP, a magnitude of features aren't supported, IR remote, backlit keyboards, usb modems, bluetooth mice+keyboard, etc heck the brightness keys will stop responding if you just change keyboards.
Finally in OSX you can as a minimum read your windows files(can't write to NTFS, but can write to FAT), in Windows you can't see any of your mac files. This becomes tiresome quickly.
The idea is that people who really need to run that occassional windows app are able to, which fills a nice void as Virtual PC doesn't run under Intel macs at the moment.
I suppose the best target market are laptop users who hate the s h i t PC laptops out there but still have to use windows at work. They can buy their mac, enjoy their photos, music and web stuff by night aka front row and the iLife suite. Then their bozo IT manager at work in the day can work with the machine like it's just another windows box.
It's sorta like batman, all boring in the day at work. Then at night he's off in the cool car, with the toys/gadgets saving lives.