Boot Camp Finally Supports Windows 7 On Macs 216
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)."
...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (Score:4, Informative)
.....just sayin'
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep... and also with the commercial VMWare Fusion and Parallels Desktop. They had free betas when Windows 7 was in the free beta period as well.
Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite. Microsoft used the launch of Windows XP to increase the price of Windows dramatically.
Besides, when amiga3D says, "they planned it that way", he doesn't mean they planned it back then in 1995. He means they planned it that way last year when they priced Windows 7.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I agree that the pricing of retail Windows is pretty ridiculous, and it continues to surprise me that people buy Windows that way. That being said, I don't like the fact that you have to upgrade OS X in order to get driver support for a new version of Windows. This isn't unusual in the software vendor world (i.e. buy new version to get new features) but it sure is abnormal in the hardware world, and Apple is the hardware vendor in this case. I really shouldn't have to buy your OS to get functioning drivers
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
psst....
The OSX upgrade costs 29 bucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is going to support win32 as long as Intel makes chips that are 32-bit only, like most of the Intel Atom line (used in Netbooks).
Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft is going to support win32 as long as Intel makes chips that are 32-bit only
What makes you think that? I seem to remember that Intel still makes 16-bit chips, yet Microsoft discontinued MS-DOS and Windows 3.x.
Re: (Score:2)
I already answered that:
In other words, they're already selling versions of Windows that the Atom will run. Back in January 2009, to PC World reported "the percent [of netbooks sold with Windows] is over 90% for the last three months (November, December, January)." (Source [pcworld.com])
W
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure about that? I bought the Windows 7 upgrade and put it on my computer. I didn't have a prior version of Windows. It still runs after all these months.
Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Digital river will sell you a legit upgrade copy of Windows 7 for $30 if you are a student at a qualifying university. Their authentication of said is that you have a *@*.edu email address.
I bought a copy of windows 7 for my wife to go along with the new macbook pro I got her for xmas. I installed it before this update came out and found it unusable, so I backed off to a copy of windows XP that i can justify using legally because it's the key from her old laptop, which was soon to be reinstalled with Fedo
Re: (Score:2)
Digital river will sell you a legit upgrade copy of Windows 7 for $30 if you are a student at a qualifying university.
Pretty much every accredited university with a computer science program offers cheap copies of Windows to its students, but going back for a master's degree is even more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Mac mini + Acer Aspire Revo + KVM (Score:2)
Users of Mac Pros are ever so slightly better off
That or Mac mini, which is the basis for the "developing for iPhone requires Xcode, and Xcode costs $600" meme in Slashdot comments. One who has a Mac mini might as well buy an Acer Aspire Revo, which is essentially free with the purchase of a copy of Windows.
their windows applications would run faster in a VM than they would on a cheap PC
On a separate KVM'd box, Windows apps don't slow Mac apps down or make them start to swap, nor do Mac apps slow down Windows apps or make them start to swap.
and since cheap PCs rarely have graphics worth anything
Acer Aspire Revo has NVIDIA ION chipset, whose GPU handily beats the Intel Graphics My A--. Bef
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, luck mac bastards, they can buy a cheap ass low end PC for $200 or less to code for windows.
But us windows people cannot buy a $200 mac to code for the iphone.
Apple could port its iphone sdk to gcc/windows/linux quite easily.
But its not in their interest, so even if it cost them say $200,000 to do it, they wouldnt.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you can get ahold of an oem or system builder edition ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell me where you can get a computer capable of running it for something near that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Newegg: $105 [newegg.com] I'm still a little confused though as to what, exactly it is that you don't get with the system builder edition that you would get with the full retail version.
Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (Score:4, Informative)
Newegg: $105 [newegg.com] I'm still a little confused though as to what, exactly it is that you don't get with the system builder edition that you would get with the full retail version.
Ars Technica had a nice article explaining the differences when Vista was released: "Buying OEM versions of Windows Vista: the facts" [arstechnica.com]
My summary (in order of importance):
To me, the only important limitation is the no-transfer limit. However, since the OEM version is roughly half the price of the full retail (not upgrade) version, I don't think it's a big deal. Also, I've read in many forums (including Slashdot) that MS will provide a new activation code for OEM versions if you say you "had to replace the motherboard" on your PC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And playing games in a VM still isn't as good as native, no matter how hard they try or claim that it is. Removing 2 layers of indirection (OS X and the Hypervisor) can't hurt.
I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows. (Score:2, Funny)
Lately I've been thinking about buying a Mac. It's not because I want to run Mac OS X; I don't. I want it just to run Windows.
Why would I spend three times as much on a Mac just to run Windows, when I could buy a Dell instead? Well, it's because I want to support Apple as best I can. I love my iPhone, and I will get an iPad as soon as I can. Apple has earned my love, and my support.
I just wish that iPhone OS ran on their desktop systems. It's the best operating system I've used in a long time.
Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe single-application mode [tidbits.com] is what you want in Mac OS X?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been running it for months.... (Score:3, Informative)
I've been running Windows 7 Eval edition since august when OS 10.6 came out. Even without bootcamp, it dectected my wireless card and intel graphics on my MacBook without any problems. How is this just now news?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because now (about 2 weeks ago actually) it's officially supported. I too have been running it for about 6 months on my MBP, and about the only improvements I've seen is temp is a lot cooler with the new drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been running Windows 7 (MSDN final) on Snow Leopard bootcamp since it came out. So not sure what this "update" adds. One problem I did have was with the mini-dvi to VGA adapter forcing it into 640x480 resolution, but that appeared to also be an issue for Vista. Hopefully they finally fixed it!
Re: (Score:2)
Boot Camp can run anything. I have a Ubuntu install running alongside Mac OSX with Boot Camp, and some people even got OpenSolaris working (not much harder than Ubuntu or Windows, from what I've heard). It's more about Mac officially supporting Windows and providing all the necessary drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
OpenSolaris works just fine. I've used the live CD and it works.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried running it in a boot-camp dual boot configuration with OSX? It should work just fine, but it's nice to know exactly what the limitations are.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've been running Windows 7 Eval edition since august when OS 10.6 came out. [snip] How is this just now news?
Before, it worked. Now it should just work (tm). At least until you get to the bit where Windows takes over :-)
Back in the early days of Intel Macs, the beta bootcamp included essential firmware updates (e.g. the EFI BIOS legacy support stuff). Since then, however, you've just been able to slam in a Windows DVD and go, although if you're not careful you'll hose OS X in the process because Windows doesn't understand the OS X partition table.
These days, BootCamp is just the point'n'click wizard that holds
Re: (Score:2)
I'd trust these guys [sourceforge.net] to get it right.
So, yes they were technically separate, but since the OS update, the firmware update and Boot Camp Beta were released more or less simultaneously its a bit moot.
The point is, before then installing Windows on a Mac at all was a hacker job whereas since then you can just stick in a Windows DVD, the only hacky bit (where BootCamp comes in) being the hybrid partitioning. If you've got a Mac Pro where you can stick Windows on a separate MBR-format HD to OS X you really do
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are now optimized Win7 drivers, previously you were using generic drivers without acceleration provided by Microsoft or drivers designed for Vista from old versions of Bootcamp.
Both worked fine, but lacked full acceleration and feature set.
I've noticed the trackpad is better now, not so overly sensitive to touch or irratic. I've noticed no change in video performance at all. I really don't know what the differences are from a user perspective but as a causual gamer, I haven't noticed a difference i
Re: (Score:2)
It is the new machines which had problems, my guess is that bootcamp did not have all drivers in needed to run Win7 on the new machines (or install them that is)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't me being argumentative, I'm genuinely asking. Why would you do this? Macs seems to cost more for the same amount of power that you'd get in a non-Mac machine. So the primary reason for buying a Mac as far as I can see if for the OS. Why would you replace it with Windows? Wouldn't you be better off buying a windows machine in the first place?
Unofficially for a while... (Score:3, Informative)
I've been running Windows 7 RTM without problems on my Nehalem Mac Pro using Bootcamp for months. It was so painless I've forgotten the details but I think I started off with the Leopard Boot Camp and then updated it with the Boot Camp off the Snow Leopard GM. I did a clean install on a new partition. Windows 7 installed more easily than Vista Ultimate 64.
Hint: If you want Win7 64bit on older MBP (Score:4, Informative)
These Macs [apple.com] won't have an issue with 64bit Win7 (or Vista). If however, you have an older machine as in my case (2007 Santa Rosa MBP) you might have trouble installing Windows 7 using the DVD.
In case it locks at boot up when trying to install you can modify the ISO and burn it to a new DVD. I used this guide [logicalvue.com] and it worked fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, I could not get the Windows 7 x64 DVD to boot. After restarting and choosing the Windows DVD at the boot screen, the screen would blank out and just display “Select CD-ROM Boot Type” and refuse to continue.
I had the exact problem as above so posted this workaround in case others with older machines had it.
Good place to ask for help (Score:2)
I want to install windows XP on my wife's macbook pro. A ran bootcamp and windows installed okay but my XP install disk is pre service pack 2. The apple drivers for windows on the macbook require SP2. Windows can't use the ethernet or wifi to upgrade itself. Microsoft don't give you a simple executable to download to upgrade to later service packs unless you have a special account with them.
My brother gave me an executable which supposedly will install SP2 but it failed for a bizarre reason (claims only 3 m
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks that very helpful. I found a howto [helpwithwindows.com] which links to an install of SP2 [microsoft.com] and I tried that file directly. But it does the same thing as my brothers file. It fails with a message saying the system has less than 4 mb free. I will try the full slipstreaming thing. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Although not required you can install 2.2 http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/apple/application_updates/bootcampdriversupdate22forwindows.html [apple.com] as well.
If you are running Snow Leopard then you might want to check out http://support.apple.com/kb/HT [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Screw Slipstreaming SP2 onto the disk. The best solution is to simply grab the SP3 ISO image and burn a disk from it. This will install all of the updates after SP1 along with SP2 onto the system and it saves you valuable time futzing around trying to slipstream the updates onto the disk.
Re: (Score:2)
What version of the bootcamp software do you have on the MBP - the earlier versions had a problem with SP2 that caused the SP2 installer to report only 3mb of space and fail, due to the way it was looking at partitions on the HD and looking at the wrong one.
If you can get a later copy of bootcamp (the windows part of it that you install with the drivers) then it should cure that issue. There is also a manual registry change you can make that sometimes works.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't put the windows part of bootcamp onto windows because it requires SP2. I just tried another direct install of SP2 but it fails and says I have less than 4 mb free.
Okay looking for the registry trick. This seems to have done the trick [windowsreference.com]. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah of course, I forgot that - hopefully the registry trick does the job for you
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it's trying to use your EFI firmware 'partition' as an install base.
1. Run "regedit"
2. [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Setup]
3. New - String value
4. Name it "BootDir" and set its value to "C:\"
-- funny that Windows needs a (manual) setting to know where it itself is installed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah thanks I found that. I now have WindowsXP SP2 installed on the macbook with Revit and Autocad installed on it, which was the point of the exercise. My wife wants to run her CAD applications on her new laptop.
Thanks to everybody who helped.
A year late... (Score:4, Informative)
Heh, I've been running Windows 7 64 bit on my MacBook Pro for just over a year now, having downloaded the first public beta out of curiosity. IIRC, it took just a minor amount of tweaking to the get Vista drivers to work for Windows 7 beta.
On that note, I'm mildly dismayed to find Win7 ending up good enough to be used as my primary operating system, which as happened mostly because the DirectX World of Warcraft seems to run better than the OpenGL one for me. That and a few other programs. I feel dirty having OS X end up as my third most used OS on this computer. (Triple booting Ubuntu 9.10, Win7-64, OS X 10.6).
Yes, we know and updated 2 weeks ago. (Score:2)
Not enough Apple news this week, now we're pulling out things from weeks ago? Everyone who cares already updated when they started Windows 7 and were notified that new drivers were available.
Hell the date on the links show its from the 19th.
You also don't need 10.6, just boot Windows 7 with the old drivers installed and Bootcamp will notify you of the updates and install them if you let it.
TIMMAH!
Not really (Score:2)
A clean install of Win 7 and the 3.1 package gave me no audio, a red light from the audio port (the opposite of what it was alleged to do) and no iSight, on further inspection in device manager there is also something called "coprocessor" that is not installed.
I got audio to work with drivers from Realtek, but no solution to the iSight issue or what the mysterious "coprocessor" is.
I don't know for sure but I would guess if you upgrade from Vista this most likely isn't an issue, I just never upgrade Windows
Re: (Score:2)
The red light from the audio port is the fiber optic, so unless your audio was showing as broken in device manager, it was actually working.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm aware of what it is, however the patch was to get rid of the issue in addition my internal speakers and headphones did not work, so you're wrong it was not "working".
So much for Win 7 support.
External Drive (Score:2)
With bootcamp can windows be made to boot off an external drive?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (Score:5, Interesting)
Because if we say "the hardware is like a Ferrari" then you will come back with "no it;s not, its just the same parts as in my PC just costs more!" - which is true. The packaging of the components is what makes it cost more, and the price is at a point the market will bear.
I know I couldn't find anything in the PC world that matched the features of my iMac - the form factor, the weight, the portability, the ability to run OS X without making a hackintosh. I'm not going to "kid myself" that the parts inside it are like a Ferrari though - I mean, it only has a Radeon X1600 which was only a midrange GPU at the time I bought it, and a regular SATA HD that is the same as the one in a normal PC. You get the picture.
It is "good value" if you believe that the price you paid for something (anything you buy, not just computers) is worth the cost, regardless of what it is. My iMac cost me £1200 when I bought it, and it was totally worth the price *to me*. It wasn't the fastest, or the biggest HD, or the best GPU or the most RAM, but it was worth every pound I paid, even if I could buy an equally specced (in terms of just pure computer spec) PC for a lot less. It's not all about raw performance.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope, it's about looking cool in front of your coffee-house hipster d-bag friends.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate coffee though. Do I have to drink it?
Re: (Score:2)
The packaging of the components is what makes it cost more, and the price is at a point the market will bear.
What does packaging mean? And you could say that about any expensive product - "the price is at a point the market will bear".
I know I couldn't find anything in the PC world that matched the features of my iMac - ... the ability to run OS X without making a hackintosh.
Macs are PCs. And one could say there's nothing in the non-Amiga world that matches the features of an Amiga, because they can't run A
Re: (Score:2)
Packaging - show me a PC that looks just like the iMac, with the same slim case, the same weight and the same look, that packs into its box in two minutes, including the time it takes to unplug, that can then be carried like a suitcase because the box has a decent handle on it.
It's one of the reasons I like the iMac so much, plus the fact I can easily dual book Windows and OS X on it, and I do move it around a fair bit (it has made several transatlantic trips, for example).
Your second point is what I mean -
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to - and the reason that you don;t tend to see many Ferrari owners trying to "prove" their car is good value is that people don;t spend time trying to prove that it's worthless.
I'm sure there are some who will say "that car is just a waste of money, buy a Corolla instead!" like you see people saying "Apple Macs are just overpriced toys and anyone who uses one is just trying to look hip and cool and values image over actually wanting to do any work"
Not everyone, but you won't need to look very far t
Re: (Score:2)
So, in other words "I know I couldn't find anything in the PC world that is a Mac."
Warning, circular logic detected!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that was an important feature to me, but even without the circular logic (say I had found the ideal PC case setup and decided to compromise and deal with the hackintosh setup), it just doesn't exist. Probably because people in the PC world are just not looking for what the iMac offers, and if they are they can just run windows on an actual iMac (and I know a guy that does just that on several iMacs in his office - they run XP 99.9% of the time they are on, only booting to OS X if any bootcamp changes a
Tell me where (Score:2)
Tell me where I can find as nice a case and trackpad as on my MacBookPro? I honestly would like to know, as all other trackpads I have tried... sucked (I've had a chance to play with dozens of laptops over the past 2 years and none compares to my MBP).
Re: (Score:2)
Well that part was my second point - the same is true for my iMac - there is nothing in the PC world that compares to what it provides.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
98 good, WinME suck, XP SP2/3 good, Vista royal suck, Windows 7 good, so Windows 8 will be a hoover vac o' suck.
It's just like Star Trek movies!
Re: (Score:2)
But how often do you have to spend that $29? Because despite what MSFT wants you can be just fine in Windows only buying once every 5 years or so, and the way MSFT has been you are better off. Its like this... 98 good, WinME suck, XP SP2/3 good, Vista royal suck, Windows 7 good, so Windows 8 will be a hoover vac o' suck.
That figures up to spending that $100 every 5 years or so as last I checked you can get system builders Win7 HP for $104. At $29 a pop and the faster release schedule I wouldn't be surprised if it cost more in the long run for OSX, hell you Apple guys shell out all that cash on a machine just to shell out more cash just to get a decent warranty, so why not even more for the OS?
and slightly OT, but why won't Apple guys just admit it is a Ferrari and be done with it? I have seen Apple guys tie themselves in logic knots while jumping through flaming hoops trying to prove that Apple computer gear is a "good value" when we all know its bullshit. Apple is like Ferrari--It is sleek, it is sexy, it is exotic looking, it is expensive. Why is that so hard to accept? Hell according to this article more than a third of you are clearing over 100k a year, so just be happy you have money to burn on Ferraris, okay?
You can be just fine on a Mac upgrading your software every five years too. Your point? Of course not EVERY new thing will be backwards compat through five years of software upgrades and patches, and that goes with _any_ system.
What does buying a new version of OS X every five years cost? What is your basis for assuming it costs more than whatever Windows "system builder" is every five years? Is "system builder" even a fair comparison?
Macs are built largely from the same components PCs are, the same pro
Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (Score:5, Informative)
You DON'T NEED this update to run Windows 7 on a Mac in Boot Camp. This update is more or less targeted at newer Macs that already shipped with Snow Leopard that are experiencing problems installing 7. (see link)
http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/windows-classic-linux-other-os/174668-windows-7-27-imac-black-screen.html [mac-forums.com]
Windows 7 installed on Boot Camp 2.0 in Leopard also works fine.
Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Or I could just install Windows on a non-Apple PC, and save the $29. Just because I spent $100, doesn't mean I feel like throwing an extra $29 away.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if you don't need or want the Apple case, then there really is no point buying it.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, given that all of the OS X installers are just DVDs, with no serial number, no online activation, no phoning home and no protections to prevent easy cloning of the disc, I don't think Apple's wrath is is that strong on that front.
It's one of those things - it's only $29 (or $129 in previous releases).
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 7 Professional you mean. It was only called Business in Vista; it was Professional for 2000/XP and is again for 7.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Foxconn boards are seriously cheap? Hell I switched to ECS for budget builds because even THEY were better than Foxconn. I honestly didn't know that Apple ran Foxconns, and if it isn't just BS...wow. Their profit margins must be truly insane if they are cheaping out with low rent boards like that. If I spent that kind of cash and found I was running a Foxconn board I'd be SERIOUSLY pissed.
Not all boards by a company are made the same, even if they are the same model. I've worked at a company that manufactured circuit boards and you'll get different buyers purchasing the same board at different prices with different levels of burn-in testing and inspection. You might have one buyer purchasing boards at cost X with almost no quality control and another purchasing the boards at a huge markup with a guarantee of 6 sigma (usually for the military or such).
You even have companies like Apple who de
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In other words (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree, however Apple has a long history of breaking compatiblity to force you to upgrade to a new product.
Aperature 1 owners upon upgrading to 10.6 find they can not load Aperature until they pay to upgrade to version 2. Happened to Me.
2007 Mac Pro owners find they have to buy a new Mac Pro to get new graphics cards (what's the point of a Mac Pro if you can not upgrade the internals) guess hard drives suffice.
I'm sure the list is longer than that as well. Also iPod 2g owners will soon probably find themselves forced to upgrade to get new apps when a SDK 5 drops or some similar excuse.
In 2004 we got ipods, then mac mini,s then I got a Mac Pro in 07, worked for a good bit, then the BS started, and were back to using Windows 7. It's was just a phase I keep telling myself.
Re:In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
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:In other words (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Forces any 4+ year older Mac out of the way since they only started making Intel chips (required for 10.6, no PowerPC chips) in 2006. And thats if you didn't buy an older Mac off the shelf. While the $29 isn't much, it's still a forced upgrade
No one is forced to buy Snow Leopard. Boot Camp with XP and Vista drivers is a feature of Leopard. Windows 7 compatible Boot Camp is a feature of Snow Leopard.
Regardless, Leopard still runs just fine. But like every OS upgrade, if you want the new features, you need the new system.
I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding the older Macs, as they can't run Windows 7 anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
On the pc side of things that happens at least on OS level, usually it is the drivers which become an issue once a new OS version comes out. There was a shitload of people who could not decently upgrade to vista because they did not get any new drivers.
As for the aperture thing, there is also on the windows side the problem once a new OS version comes out you in many cases have to upgrade, I think the percentages of programs which needs upgrade is more on OSX though because windows try to keep backwards com
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to mention, my experience is that old machines usually are supported by Apple within a 4-5 years timeframe. The so normally OS upgrades work 4 years min sometimes over 8 years although the last 2-3 years might be hackish like it used to be with the old G2 grey boxes.
Apple tends to integrate too much and use that one for incentive to upgrade (not being able to update the graphics card can be a break point for many, but you should have known that upfront when buying the machine). In case of notebooks
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to mobile phones, tablets, and the like Apple may be at the bleeding edge of innovation. However, when it comes to computer hardware (in terms of processors, video chipsets, hard drive capacities, and the like) they are on the trailing edge of obsolescence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mac mini: it is small, reduces clutter, and quiet. The tradeoff is older-generation processors, limited RAM, and limited hard drive space. It's also a pain in the butt to service without marring the case. Upgrade options (video, processor, etc) are practically nil.
iMac: It provides a large monitor without the rat's nest of cables you get with most tower PC/workstation
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but requiring a server license is rather expensive just so I can test development in a sandbox.
Re: (Score:2)
What about when you already own a Mac and occasionally want to run Windows? You may not be able to buy a PC that compares to the Mac you already have for less than the cost of a windows license or a cheap PC.