PDA

View Full Version : Apple's Solution to booting Windows.




iQuit
Apr 5, 2006, 07:55 AM
I don't know if it's already been posted but I noticed this on Apple's website.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/



greatdevourer
Apr 5, 2006, 08:34 AM
Saw it just now. The only problem with it is that it doesn't do MCE ;) However, if it has hardware graphics and working trackpads...

Dagless
Apr 5, 2006, 08:40 AM
... So that's official and that? Sounds pretty great. Maybe that's why Apple had that big ol' argument with OSX86, they had their own product in the pipeline.

greatdevourer
Apr 5, 2006, 08:49 AM
I wonder what happens to onmac.net's graphics-driver hunt? Does it get pulled down? Or does one lucky Apple employee make $1500 :p

cr2sh
Apr 5, 2006, 09:56 AM
Has anyone used both the $13,000 solution and the Apple solution? How different are the two techniques?

GimmeSlack12
Apr 5, 2006, 12:31 PM
The 2 techniques are very different. Although they accomplish the same thing. Dual Boot.

The Apple method has working drivers, and a simple process as is expected by Apple.

Apple's method is the way to go.

p0intblank
Apr 5, 2006, 12:32 PM
Has anyone used both the $13,000 solution and the Apple solution? How different are the two techniques?

I haven't used either, but I do know for a fact that Apple's solution is MUCH more user-friendly. There are no hacks needed or anything. Apple practically gives you software to boot into XP. You'll still have acquire an XP Service Pack 2 disc, though.

dmw007
Apr 5, 2006, 01:05 PM
The 2 techniques are very different. Although they accomplish the same thing. Dual Boot.

The Apple method has working drivers, and a simple process as is expected by Apple.

Apple's method is the way to go.

Yep, I would stick with Apple's way of doing things. Still can not get over how cool this announcement is (concerning Boot Camp). That said, all of my Macs are PowerPC :o ..... for now. ;) :)

cr2sh
Apr 5, 2006, 01:06 PM
I haven't used either, but I do know for a fact that Apple's solution is MUCH more user-friendly.

What made me wonder was Apple's site saying you needed a blank cd. It seemed odd, but similar to the other methods blank cd method.

"Apple's is easier", is not the difference I'm looking for. Do the two techniques achieve the same thing, the same way? I beieve the $13,000 solution had you modify a config file.. or something, burn the special windows install disc and go on.

Of course Apple's method is easier... of course it has more drivers... but is there a chance that Apple took that other setup technique and just simplified the process... or is this a whole new work around?

GimmeSlack12
Apr 5, 2006, 02:55 PM
Of course Apple's method is easier... of course it has more drivers... but is there a chance that Apple took that other setup technique and just simplified the process... or is this a whole new work around?
Both ways achieve Dual Booting. I don't know what the difference is concerning how it is done. Apple's way requires you do an install. The $13k way requires a whole lot of other crap.
All that matters is that it works.

cr2sh
Apr 5, 2006, 03:12 PM
All that matters is that it works.

That might be all that matters... but that's not what I asked.

:)

The title of this thread is "Apple's Solution to booting Windows." and my question is... how is this solution different?

plinden
Apr 5, 2006, 03:26 PM
That might be all that matters... but that's not what I asked.

:)

The title of this thread is "Apple's Solution to booting Windows." and my question is... how is this solution different?
Well, I haven't done either, but I read over the instructions.

I see that Apple's solution provides a firmware update to support BIOS, a way of partitioning the Mac HDD without requiring an OS X reinstall, all the necessary drivers, and you use the retail XP disk and don't need to burn your own copy.

The "blank CD" mentioned in the instructions is for the drivers.

Booting doesn't appear to be as elegant with the Apple solution. You have to press the Option key on start up, and you get two HDD icons side-by-side with "Windows XP" or "Mac OS X" under them. I guess Apple didn't want to have to pay to use the MS Windows graphics.

What I want to know is, after partitioning with Boot Camp (it won't work if the Mac OS X disk is already partitioned), can you repartition the XP partition into separate FAT32 (for shared data) and NTFS (for the XP install) and still be able to install XP?

Kingsly
Apr 5, 2006, 03:30 PM
I went from installing BootCamp to the XP desktop in under an hour and whew, XP is spunky when running on Apple hardware! :D
I cant wait to get home and dust off my PC games!
(the ATI driver works flawlessly BTW)

rumbletum
Apr 5, 2006, 03:53 PM
I've got a licensed version of XP Pro (from Virtual PC), does anyone know if there's anyway I can use this with Boot Camp, as it's not a single disc version of XP, and doesn't include SP2. I don't really want to fork out for another version of XP, when I have a currently unused version here.

lamina
Apr 5, 2006, 03:58 PM
Works PERFECTLY. I did it on a 20" iMac today. Unbelievably fast in Windows, ans Google Earth looks absolutely awesome.

Go Apple.

dudemac
Apr 5, 2006, 04:19 PM
Both ways achieve Dual Booting. I don't know what the difference is concerning how it is done. Apple's way requires you do an install. The $13k way requires a whole lot of other crap.
All that matters is that it works.

Apples way actually uses the modified firmware to support booting legacy "BIOS" OS's. This should make it much easier for Linux to be installed too. And it should be noted while it says it needs winxp sp2. I would bet that win2k would also install. I will be trying tonight. :) I have winxp but don't want the overhead to just run one app. (photoshop)

shortys408
Apr 5, 2006, 04:52 PM
can you log into safe mode on this?