Boot Camp Finally Supports Windows 7 On Macs

Dave Knott writes "After some delay Apple has updated Boot Camp to support Windows 7 on Macintosh computers. They have also provided an upgrade utility that facilitates transition to Windows 7 for Mac owners who have existing Vista installations. The new version of Boot Camp requires OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard)."

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Is English your third language? The only thing more feeble than your grip on the English language is your tired and ill-informed "argument". /. sucks these days. Also, fuck the facebook and twitter buttons. Ugh!

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[LostCluster]

$29 upgrade fee send you into bankruptcy? How'd you afford the $100+ for whatever version of Windows you got?

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows.

[__aaclcg7560]

I just wish that iPhone OS ran on their desktop systems. It's the best operating system I've used in a long time.

Maybe single-application mode [tidbits.com] is what you want in Mac OS X?

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[tepples]

Of course, the problem with running Windows on a Mac is Microsoft's pricing structure. Boot Camp or Parallels or VMware or VirtualBox needs a retail copy of Windows. But it turns out that one can actually buy a whole PC running Windows, including a spare keyboard and mouse, for close to the price of a retail copy of Windows.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[jo_ham]

So the $29 cost of Snow Leopard is the crippling factor, not the $100+ cost of the Win7 copy you want to install?

The straw that broke the camel's back perhaps?

Oh wait, you torrented Windows and just want a cheap (ha) dig at Apple.

Re:Good place to ask for help

[heffrey]

Slipstream SP2 onto the SP1 XP disc. Slipstreaming is the process of converting an installation disk to a higher service pack (well, that's what I think it is!) A bit of Google and you should be there in an hour or so.

Re:I've had it installed...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're already at a base score of -1, you can no longer be down modded. Either way, it actually is redundant, as several people have already brought up this point. Maybe you wouldn't have such shit karma if you actually read the comments first.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[amiga3D]

That's not by accident. That's planned that way.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. "Share this on facebook", "Share this on twitter". More like "Share this with the shark we just jumped. " and "Share this with the judge at our chapter 7 bankruptcy hearing."

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways

[gandhi_2]

Nope, it's about looking cool in front of your coffee-house hipster d-bag friends.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

While I'm sure that they would all prefer that it be cheaper, I doubt VMware and company are much worried.

You definitely can get a fully functional, if not very exciting, wintel box for about the cost of a Windows licence. However, that probably won't be of too much use to your average mac user contemplating windows: The bulk of Macs sold are laptops. If you are using a laptop, you are likely carrying it around at least sometimes. Suddenly, your HP box or Asus netbook or whatever it was you purchased for the cost of the OS it runs starts to look annoying.

Even if you have a Mac desktop, you are going to run into issues: iMacs can function as monitors; but only if the input source is Displayport. With a cheap PC, you'll get VGA or DVI, which means that you'll need either another monitor, or an active converter. You'll also need another set of peripherals, and the desk space for them, or a KVM. Standard 2 or 4 port VGA/PS2/USB KVMs are cheap; but DVI/USB KVMs are kind of pricey. I haven't even dared to look at displayport KVMs. Users of Mac Pros are ever so slightly better off; particularly if they are using a third party monitor with multiple switchable inputs(ie. any Dell monitor that somebody with a $3,000 desktop would purchase); but they will run into the problem that, because they are on a Mac Pro, their windows applications would run faster in a VM than they would on a cheap PC(and since cheap PCs rarely have graphics worth anything, even the notoriously virtualization-hostile task of gaming won't work better).

Re:In other words

[node 3]

I agree, however Apple has a long history of breaking compatiblity to force you to upgrade to a new product.

Not quite. Apple has a long history of focusing on their current products. Windows 7 drivers are part of Snow Leopard because Snow Leopard is the current OS.

You're partially right in that Apple does want people to upgrade to the current OS. But if their motives were as underhanded as you imply, it seems a bit odd they'd price Snow Leopard at $29.

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the myth...

AC is not comparing features but cheapest computers that run windows compared to the cheapest Mac. 3x may be about right. However, to get the same level of computer in both, the price is similar.