PDA

View Full Version : Intel Mac Firmware Update Brings BIOS Support


MacRumors
Apr 5, 2006, 01:42 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple surprised everyone today when they introduced Boot Camp (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060405094135.shtml) -- drivers and instructions on how to boot Windows XP on the new Intel Macs.

Along with Boot Camp, Apple has posted (http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/) firmware updates to all their Intel Macs today. These firmware updates provide EFI with BIOS support, allowing all Intel Macs to boot operating systems such as Windows XP and Linux. This should also allow the Intel Macs to boot upcoming operating systems, such as Windows Vista. The Boot Camp CD which is provided simply provides needed Mac-specific drivers for full support of Windows XP on the Intel Macs.

While the original discussion thread is still growing, users are encouraged to post specific questions and answers in our Windows on Mac subforum (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=86) and update the Booting Windows on the Mac (http://guides.macrumors.com/Booting_Windows_on_the_Mac) guide page with tips and solutions.

ibbetson
Apr 5, 2006, 01:46 PM
time to buy some apple stock... here comes the revolution for wannabe switchers.

freakin' autoCAD on a mac.. finally!

milo
Apr 5, 2006, 01:47 PM
So I wonder who will be the first to boot linux or media center using this?

I assume most drivers will be fine for MCE, linux will require more DIY.

IJ Reilly
Apr 5, 2006, 01:48 PM
News Flash: Apple Shuts Barn Door After Horse Escapes!

MacTruck
Apr 5, 2006, 01:49 PM
LMFAO! Those get windows on a mac contestants must feel like idiots now. Except for the winner ofcourse. :eek:

jono_3
Apr 5, 2006, 01:49 PM
is this happy 30th?

ericdano
Apr 5, 2006, 01:50 PM
I think it's fine. If you want to run Windows, go for it. Personally, as a user of BOTH Mac and Windows, I can't think of anything I'd want to run Windows for. Plus, having all that Spyware/Virus protection software bloating my machine gets old.

Mikido
Apr 5, 2006, 01:51 PM
yes, it's true ! freakin' AutoCAD will eventually work. I have been waiting for this for years.

1dterbeest
Apr 5, 2006, 01:51 PM
LMFAO! Those get windows on a mac contestants must feel like idiots now. Except for the winner ofcourse. :eek:

Nah, it is probably partially because of them that Apple released this so quickly to the public. If people hadn't been trying do do it themselves, then Apple would have less reason to do it FOR them.

kalisphoenix
Apr 5, 2006, 01:52 PM
I think this is a step in the right direction.

Not very ambitious, though. This might be a nail in the coffin of the hopes we had for Xen or some other hypervisor being integrated into the OS. Unless that's going to come in Leopard too, and this dual-boot solution is all that will work on our current iMacs and MacBook Pros.

:-/

Thanks, Apple :)

richdun
Apr 5, 2006, 02:00 PM
Alright, now the cat's out. Time to test how well this BIOS on EFI supports legacy OSes.

I want to see screenshots, all natively installed, no VMware, no VPC:
1) Windows 98
2) Windows 3.1
3) MS-DOS 6.2

And for style points, do them all on an iMac or a MacBook Pro (no minis, no screen to "prove" its a Mac).

MOFS
Apr 5, 2006, 02:00 PM
is this happy 30th?

More importantly is this April Fools day? I don't think anyone saw this coming - my jaw dropped when I saw this on BBC news. I think Apple is now moving very aggressively to go for market share. Who would've thought, Apple actively allowing Windows to be run on their computers...we need to start thinking of something stronger than "Hell froze over" - "Hell reached absolute zero" mebbe?!:p :eek:

nagromme
Apr 5, 2006, 02:00 PM
We may never know the behind-the-scenes process, but I tend to think that promoting Windows-on-Mac is a recent decision by Apple, not something planned all along. (Although it was surely on their list of "things we could do.")

jsw
Apr 5, 2006, 02:03 PM
Regardless of whether most Mac users need or even want to run Windows, this official release from Apple has paved the way for me to finally have hope of getting a MacBook Pro at work. I just received word that I can submit a request, and my feeling is that the chance of it getting approved finally exceeds the Macintosh market share.

This is not me bragging about getting a MacBook Pro (and, again, by "getting" I mean "allowed to ask about the possibility of maybe ordering one"). This is elation over the possibility of getting a Mac for "official" use - any Mac whatsoever. I've been using them at home and, unofficially, sometimes at work, but it's never been officially condoned. Now that I could run XP, I can ask for an Apple product. I don't have to install XP. I just, according to my manager, need to be able to if the need arises - via an officially provided method.

I suspect there are others in my position as well.

Bless you, Apple.

iDrinkKoolAid
Apr 5, 2006, 02:05 PM
This is the day I was waiting for since 1995!

That's sort of when I really couldn't do electrical engineering on a Mac as SPICE stopped being developed for the Mac. Yes, I can run Oregano via Fink but I'm not used to the complexities of open-source software.

As 95% of the software I use for my audio engineering research is on WinBlowz I can finally ditch using the molasses-slow Virtual PC, which I've been relying on since '95, to do number crunching. Some WinDoze electrical engineering software wouldn't even run under Virtual PC.

I've been forced to buy various Windows machines from time to time - all garbage. I've had a Compaq desktop which died within two weeks. I've put together a white-box PC which had glitches. And recently a Dull laptop which I sold since the quality and tech support were so horrible.

I was about to buy another Windows laptop, a Lenovo Z60t. But that would mean carrying two laptops - my PowerBook and a Windows laptop (and believe me, I used to do this). I would have tried the MacTel dual-boot solution but was scared to give it a try as I've heard just installing new Windows drivers can hose the whole hard drive. Not on a machine that my livelihood relies on.

But now, there is official support from Apple! One machine for all my needs. And those people who still state "Why would anyone want to run Windows on a Mac," please look around you (unless you're a graphics, video, or Pro Tools professional) see what most lemmings use as far as computing platform before you speak. ;)

monkeyandy
Apr 5, 2006, 02:07 PM
I cannot be bothered reading through 30 pages of inane ranting (got to page 10!) by people to find an answer to this question....whoever has installed this what is the 3d graphics performance like in XP, does it run your games well? Can't seem to find this info anywhere, let us all know! :)

kalisphoenix
Apr 5, 2006, 02:08 PM
It's possible that Apple has been working on this all along, but kindly decided to release their version after the onmac.net people had their day in the sun. After all, it wouldn't be very nice for someone to announce a $13 000 reward and then have Apple churn out something the next day and cough politely while holding out their hand.

This is what a lot of people wanted, and Apple gave it to them -- an official solution. There's also some people who got a decent chunk of change doing it, and some people who hopefully had a lot of fun. There was also a lot of hype that got built up.

And then Apple released this just as people got over the "wow" factor of dual-booting and started working on the really heavy **** -- video drivers, et cetera. That's all fine and dandy for many Linux users, but most normal (;)) people want a professionally-engineered graphics driver.

I know I've already posted on this, but I'm really pleased by this. More than I expected to be, especially considering that my wife's machine runs XP and so I see no need to put it on my box.

Of course, I'm still hoping that Apple moves forward with the Xen/hypervisor ideas, because dual-booting is only a solution for games. If Apple makes something as nifty as Mac-on-Linux, well, it'd be a juggernaut.

ericdano
Apr 5, 2006, 02:09 PM
I think this is a step in the right direction.

Not very ambitious, though. This might be a nail in the coffin of the hopes we had for Xen or some other hypervisor being integrated into the OS. Unless that's going to come in Leopard too, and this dual-boot solution is all that will work on our current iMacs and MacBook Pros.


Actually, quite the opposite I think. If you release Boot Camp now, then people will develop drivers and what not to make the Intel macs run XP. Then, it would be quite a bit easier to get some type of Yellow Box or Xen to work within OS X. Less work for Apple, and the testing/developing would be by others rather than Apple.....since Apple isn't really "supporting" XP on it's hardware.

qtip919
Apr 5, 2006, 02:10 PM
I cannot be bothered reading through 30 pages of inane ranting (got to page 10!) by people to find an answer to this question....whoever has installed this what is the 3d graphics performance like in XP, does it run your games well? Can't seem to find this info anywhere, let us all know! :)

you should start this thread over in Mac Hardware

ZildjianKX
Apr 5, 2006, 02:11 PM
This is the day I was waiting for since 1995!

That's sort of when I really couldn't do electrical engineering on a Mac as SPICE stopped being developed for the Mac. Yes, I can run Oregano via Fink but I'm not used to the complexities of open-source software.

As 95% of the software I use for my audio engineering research is on WinBlowz I can finally ditch using the molasses-slow Virtual PC, which I've been relying on since '95, to do number crunching. Some WinDoze electrical engineering software wouldn't even run under Virtual PC.

I've been forced to buy various Windows machines from time to time - all garbage. I've had a Compaq desktop which died within two weeks. I've put together a white-box PC which had glitches. And recently a Dull laptop which I sold since the quality and tech support were so horrible.

I was about to buy another Windows laptop, a Lenovo Z60t. But that would mean carrying two laptops - my PowerBook and a Windows laptop (and believe me, I used to do this). I would have tried the MacTel dual-boot solution but was scared to give it a try as I've heard just installing new Windows drivers can hose the whole hard drive. Not on a machine that my livelihood relies on.

But now, there is official support from Apple! One machine for all my needs. And those people who still state "Why would anyone want to run Windows on a Mac," please look around you (unless you're a graphics, video, or Pro Tools professional) see what most lemmings use as far as computing platform before you speak. ;)

OMG, I sooo feel your pain. Computer engineer here, between SPICE and VHDL I was going nuts. I bought a G5 right after they came out and I couldn't even run virtual PC.

j-a-x
Apr 5, 2006, 02:12 PM
What a cool surprises. It's not like I need to run anything in windows right now, but having that option is pretty awesome... and a great way to convince people to switch to Mac!

milo
Apr 5, 2006, 02:13 PM
News Flash: Apple Shuts Barn Door After Horse Escapes!

Hell, I'll take a late barn door close over one that takes hours and several attempts (including hard drive reformats) to close, and still doesn't quite work right.

lonelemur90
Apr 5, 2006, 02:14 PM
one word... wow... we all knew it was comming, but not this early; the insturctions and support from apple to dual boot a mac are here... If your ganno buy stock in apple, do it now, cause sales are gonna soar now that you can put XP (and vista later) on an apple with OS X. its a very exciting day. :D

Whistleway
Apr 5, 2006, 02:14 PM
This is too good to be true...

hd78
Apr 5, 2006, 02:15 PM
This is too good. Am I dreaming?

qtip919
Apr 5, 2006, 02:15 PM
This is simply wonderful news, and something that is going to open more doors than people realize.

Additionally, if Apple wants to REALLY hit the market hard, they will open OS X up to existing PCs. If Apple did this, there would be a true halo effect.

People simply dont realize that the vast majority of PC users are not in love with hardware. The only thing they usually care about is getting an LCD display (at best)

We Apple hardware snobs, just dont seem to be on the same planet as most of these people who just cant imagine paying between 800-2000 for a new Operating System which will provide a short window of time where they will be frustrated, lost, panic-stricken, and then, finally, happy.

However, if Apple just allowed OS X to migrate its way into their household as a way to:

1. get away from the over-abundance of viruses and spyware
2. manage their digital media
3. simplify their computing experience

people will RUN to the stores to get OS X. I would expect this to provide between a 10-30% marketshare increase. This is based on real numbers too BTW.

MacMosher
Apr 5, 2006, 02:16 PM
time to buy some apple stock... here comes the revolution for wannabe switchers.

freakin' autoCAD on a mac.. finally!
ahah Yes. I see I have a fellow M.E. perhaps?

monkeyandy
Apr 5, 2006, 02:33 PM
you should start this thread over in Mac Hardware

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=191758 :cool:

What is the GFX perfrmance like on XP using Boot Camp for games....anyone tried it yet?

IJ Reilly
Apr 5, 2006, 02:37 PM
Hell, I'll take a late barn door close over one that takes hours and several attempts (including hard drive reformats) to close, and still doesn't quite work right.

Well sure, but I think the timing isn't a coincidence. Apple wants a smooth solution for its customers, not a hack.

Compufix
Apr 5, 2006, 02:38 PM
I cannot be bothered reading through 30 pages of inane ranting (got to page 10!) by people to find an answer to this question....whoever has installed this what is the 3d graphics performance like in XP, does it run your games well? Can't seem to find this info anywhere, let us all know! :)

Full Hardware Acceleration with official (at least supplied by Apple ) ATI drivers.....

20" iMac, everything (including speakers) working EXCEPT for the iSight, IR remote and Keyboard backlight.

Still testing, but it is VERY VERY fast.....

-Compufix

monkeyandy
Apr 5, 2006, 02:44 PM
Full Hardware Acceleration with official (at least supplied by Apple ) ATI drivers.....

20" iMac, everything (including speakers) working EXCEPT for the iSight, IR remote and Keyboard backlight.

Still testing, but it is VERY VERY fast.....

-Compufix

Nice one! Thanks mate! Thats what I've been waiting for! Let me know if you can get any games, etc to run! :D

dakis
Apr 5, 2006, 02:44 PM
This is too good. Am I dreaming?

nope, I just installed XP on my Intel Mac. It's absolutely fabulous for gaming - much faster than the Intel Pentium 4 3.2ghz PC I'm going to be selling on eBay tomorrow. iSight doesn't work, apart from that, everything seems fine.
Still like OS X MUCH better, though.

dakis
Apr 5, 2006, 02:49 PM
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=191758 :cool:

What is the GFX perfrmance like on XP using Boot Camp for games....anyone tried it yet?

I played Need for Speed Underground on my iMac this evening. Not exactly the latest game, but very heavy on the graphics side. I was able to play it at 1280x1024 with full detail. The pentium 4 3.2 ghz box I had used exclusively for gaming until now only gave me a 800x600 at full detail... The iMac performance ROCKS. Considering the fact, that it uses a graphics card with a "Mobility" chip it's simply incredible. What was also incredible: the fan speed didn't even go up after having played for about half an hour.

monkeyandy
Apr 5, 2006, 02:49 PM
Unfortunately I need to use XP for work :mad:

But on the good side of things there are a alot of good games that are only PC based and i'm looking forward to running these! This is the only thing tha has been holding me off from purchasing a new intel Mac so far, no excuse now!

Should I hold on till June for the new MacBook or opt for a MacBook Pro! I can't wait but i'm sure when they bring out the new MacBook i'm gonna want one!

:D

dakis
Apr 5, 2006, 02:50 PM
Nice one! Thanks mate! Thats what I've been waiting for! Let me know if you can get any games, etc to run! :D

everything (including games) seems to be running absolutely perfectly.

cyberddot
Apr 5, 2006, 02:53 PM
Unfortunately I need to use XP for work :mad:

But on the good side of things there are a alot of good games that are only PC based and i'm looking forward to running these! This is the only thing tha has been holding me off from purchasing a new intel Mac so far, no excuse now!

Should I hold on till June for the new MacBook or opt for a MacBook Pro! I can't wait but i'm sure when they bring out the new MacBook i'm gonna want one!

:D

My head is spinning with the same thoughts..for the first time! Ugh. I know I can't go wrong with the MBP if this Beta makes a strong run, but for the $cost$ of the MBP. I just want to get resale value on this *ell that I've got. Oh, but having this tough decision to make was the stuff of dreams only yesterday!:D

Abulia
Apr 5, 2006, 02:53 PM
News Flash: Apple Shuts Barn Door After Horse Escapes!These pictures are obviously fakes!

;)

Stella
Apr 5, 2006, 02:57 PM
It would be too long until articles, such as:
'Apple dropping OSX' come along from people who want their names in 'print'.

Stella
Apr 5, 2006, 02:59 PM
Well sure, but I think the timing isn't a coincidence. Apple wants a smooth solution for its customers, not a hack.

The Beta yes, but Apple have been working on this for a while.

Those people using the Hack: it won't look good on Apple when reports of people frying their Macs appear because the Windows drivers that control Cooling Fans aren't there. ( Despite not being Apple's fault ).

shamino
Apr 5, 2006, 03:08 PM
Alright, now the cat's out. Time to test how well this BIOS on EFI supports legacy OSes.

I want to see screenshots, all natively installed, no VMware, no VPC:
1) Windows 98
2) Windows 3.1
3) MS-DOS 6.2
How about:

4) OS/2 (32-bit, although the 16-bit version would really impress me ;) )
5) BeOS
6) Solaris
7) Linux

The best non-Mac operating systems are not from Microsoft.
And for style points, do them all on an iMac or a MacBook Pro (no minis, no screen to "prove" its a Mac).
Ummmm.... That won't matter much. Photos are easily doctored. Sites like Fark do it all the time with their photoshop contests.

monkeyandy
Apr 5, 2006, 03:09 PM
My head is spinning with the same thoughts..for the first time! Ugh. I know I can't go wrong with the MBP if this Beta makes a strong run, but for the $cost$ of the MBP. I just want to get resale value on this *ell that I've got. Oh, but having this tough decision to make was the stuff of dreams only yesterday!:D





At least i'm not the only one! It is a great predicament to be in! I'm the same I know the MacBook Pro would do me great but it's a little out of my reach financially! I do have my credit card ready to go! What does one do!?

aswitcher
Apr 5, 2006, 03:14 PM
January 2007 is looking very tempting for a intel Mac now...

deadturtle
Apr 5, 2006, 03:19 PM
Goodbye Dell Laptop, Goodbye 500mhz iBook
Goodnight G5 maybe you can be a server?
Goonight Linux box, goodnight whitebox!

Hello Macbook Pro (linux,xp,osx)
Hello Mac Pro (linux,xp,osx) (come on Apply Quad Core Intels and a gig of RAM standard, you know its time!!)

Man I could single handedly reduce my home office from 6 machines to 2 (unless apple Virtualization really kicks in, then I could live with one if I can have linux-in-a-window!)

Hot damn!

gunm
Apr 5, 2006, 03:19 PM
I already have a PC with Windows, a Windows laptop for home, and another Windows laptop for work, so this is really overkill for me. I don't mind having a separate box for another OS, in fact, I prefer it.

Besides, I like OS X, and it be a pain to reboot everytime I want to use one or the other.

Obviously there's a demand for it, so if it sells more hardware, then I guess more power to you, Apple...

Electro Funk
Apr 5, 2006, 03:22 PM
LMFAO! Those get windows on a mac contestants must feel like idiots now. Except for the winner ofcourse. :eek:

Are you kidding? yeah i would feel like a real idiot if everyone knew i was intelligent enough to do something that 95% of our population could not... and on top of that i win a cool 15g's....

Boy what an idiot i must be...:confused:

shamino
Apr 5, 2006, 03:23 PM
Apple was clearly working on this for some time. Not even they can slap out a firmware update, suite of device drivers, disk partition-resizing utility, etc in a few short weeks.

The contest is clearly what spurred them to release it now, and not wait for WWDC or the Leopard release. They probably don't want a lot of people installing the hacked-up solution, messing up their firmware and disk formatting, and then complaining to AppleCare when the Mac OS side never works right again.

This way, they've got a known quantity to deal with. If anyone tries to use the contest-solution and gets messed up hardware, Apple can tell them to get bent. It would be a harder thing to do with no replacement solution to offer.

I still think this won't be terribly important in the grand scheme of things, however. All the criticism previously levied against dual-booting still applies:

It is very annoying to have to reboot when switching between Mac and Windows apps. So much so that most people will (after the novelty wears off) pick one OS and stick with it, ignoring the other. I've worked in dual-boot situations in the past (various combinations of DOS, OS/2, Windows, and Linux) and have always hated it. Far better to get a second computer or an emulation environment.
Some activities (like sharing data between apps on both systems) will be the most inconvenient way they could possibly be. Save data, quit, reboot, launch, load data, repeat ad nauseum. Two separate computers make this much easier. Only something like VPC, however, can make this convenient.
Most of the problems that Windows users have with their computers are due to Windows, not the hardware. These problems are not going to go away just because the hardware is made by Apple.
Users will be completely unsupported. Apple has said that they will not support Windows. Do you think Microsoft will provide any support? Even if they do (meaning you bought a full-priced retail box of WinXP), do you think they are going to know much about Apple hardware? At least Dell customers get Windows support from Dell.

cyberddot
Apr 5, 2006, 03:24 PM
January 2007 is looking very tempting for a intel Mac now...

...with Merom or Conroe? ;) Ugh (again), that carrot just keeps me running. I haven't been in this giddy and indecisive Apple mode for 6 years, and I didn't miss it!

neymo
Apr 5, 2006, 03:25 PM
hey, nobody say nothing about booting OSX on pc, a solution that already exist for a while, isnt it ?

did apple is gona give us an official solution too ?:confused:

richdun
Apr 5, 2006, 03:26 PM
How about:

4) OS/2 (32-bit, although the 16-bit version would really impress me ;) )
5) BeOS
6) Solaris
7) Linux

The best non-Mac operating systems are not from Microsoft.
Ummmm.... That won't matter much. Photos are easily doctored. Sites like Fark do it all the time with their photoshop contests.

Oops, forgot my sarcasm tags. Though I agree about the 16-bit OS/2 version...

Linux already should work on Intel Macs, though maybe with some kernel tweaking.

bigandy
Apr 5, 2006, 03:27 PM
:eek: :eek: :eek:

i'm still changing my underwear!!

it's good for me too, there's some windows apps i've struggled without (i refuse to buy a peecee), so this is a big step in the right direction.

:rolleyes:

macfan881
Apr 5, 2006, 03:31 PM
i totally agree with u i for one would by osx for my pc the only reason why i have a pc now is to play matrix online but now with this im thinkin bout going back to mac but if apple would sel os x on pc that would save me alot money would only have to pay 149 instead of 599 of a mac mini or a imac at 1299

shamino
Apr 5, 2006, 03:31 PM
hey, nobody say nothing about booting OSX on pc, a solution that already exist for a while, isnt it ?
Apple will never support this. They take measures (e.g. the TPM chip) to explicitly prevent this. I doubt they will ever change their mind on this.

Mac OS X for generic PC's creates a double-whammy of death for them. It causes potential Mac customers to buy hardware from third parties, and it requires Apple to start supporting the infinite combinations of hardware that Microsoft goes crazy trying to support.

blitzkrieg79
Apr 5, 2006, 03:34 PM
I played Need for Speed Underground on my iMac this evening. Not exactly the latest game, but very heavy on the graphics side. I was able to play it at 1280x1024 with full detail. The pentium 4 3.2 ghz box I had used exclusively for gaming until now only gave me a 800x600 at full detail... The iMac performance ROCKS. Considering the fact, that it uses a graphics card with a "Mobility" chip it's simply incredible. What was also incredible: the fan speed didn't even go up after having played for about half an hour.

3.2GHZ Pentium 4 and can't handle Need For Speed Underground? I bet you have more memory and a much better graphics card on your iMac than on that PC. When comparing benchmarks please give the actual details that matter. I have a P4 2.53GHZ with a 7800GT NVidia with 2 GB of RAM and pretty much it handles all the games I throw at it.

dakis
Apr 5, 2006, 03:40 PM
3.2GHZ Pentium 4 and can't handle Need For Speed Underground? I bet you have more memory and a much better graphics card on your iMac than on that PC. When comparing benchmarks please give the actual details that matter. I have a P4 2.53GHZ with a 7800GT NVidia with 2 GB of RAM and pretty much it handles all the games I throw at it.

1gb of RAM on both machines. The PC has a GeForce 6200 which I know is crap. I was just surprised that the ATI 1600 mobility would offer so much more power as that one is specifically designed for notebook computers. But apart from that: "it handles all the games I throw at it" isn't very specific either, for that matter.

blitzkrieg79
Apr 5, 2006, 03:44 PM
1gb of RAM on both machines. The PC has a GeForce 6200 which I know is crap. I was just surprised that the ATI 1600 mobility would offer so much more power as that one is specifically designed for notebook computers. But apart from that: "it handles all the games I throw at it" isn't very specific either, for that matter.

I am not much of a gamer, when I was younger I was playing more, but recently I am into Half-Life 2, all settings maxed out, playing at 1600x1200 and it runs flawless. Another game is Far Cry, same settings and it also doesn't skip a beat.

bbyrdhouse
Apr 5, 2006, 03:47 PM
Wouldn't you imagine that this news would severly cripple software developers from compiling or building for Mac platform. At least there is no real incentive to do so.

I am sure that there will always be companies that will develop for Mac, but if say Adobe, took the stance that they could save thousands in R/D for OS X because all new Macs can run Windows....

At first I thought "Wow this is great news", but the more I think about it I just wonder what this will do for native OS X apps down the road.

Ken S
Apr 5, 2006, 03:48 PM
Does anyone know if the firmware does anything more than provide EFI with BIOS support? The Apple website doesn't have very much information on the download beyond the instructions.

bense27
Apr 5, 2006, 03:49 PM
has anybody tried the firmware update yet? I am afraid to do it:cool:

weldon
Apr 5, 2006, 03:49 PM
The Boot Camp CD which is provided simply provides needed Mac-specific drivers for full support of Windows XP on the Intel Macs.
Just wanted to point out that the Boot Camp app also provides a method for dynamic repartitioning of your hard drive to create space for Windows XP (and removing that partition) in addition to creating the support CD with the drivers on it.

baleensavage
Apr 5, 2006, 03:58 PM
Just wanted to point out that the Boot Camp app also provides a method for dynamic repartitioning of your hard drive to create space for Windows XP (and removing that partition) in addition to creating the support CD with the drivers on it.
I noticed this in the description too. Now if the will add live repartitioning to DIsk Utility that will be really really cool. Windows users have had that for years and us Mac users are stuck reformatting a drive when we want to adjust the partitions (unless we buy thrid party software).

morespce54
Apr 5, 2006, 04:08 PM
http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/][/url]
Word to the Wise
Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means itíll 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.


Mhuuaaaaaa !!!!!! :o

calculus
Apr 5, 2006, 04:16 PM
This is too good. Am I dreaming?
Yes. You're having a nightmare.

the.snitch
Apr 5, 2006, 04:28 PM
This is too good. Am I dreaming?


I concurr. I'm amazed.

yac_moda
Apr 5, 2006, 04:30 PM
Hey guys, check out the fun turns I found in Dells stock, turns around Mac news ...

If your argument were true, today's release of Boot Camp should have directly affected Dell's stock. You contend that Apple's market strategy directly affects Dell's strategy, thereby FORCING them to buy Alienware. Well, it's 12:38PM EST, and since the announcement of Boot Camp, there's only been a $0.09 drop in price, a 0.23% movement in Dell's price. Apple's market strategy of releasing a new software that directly places the company in competition with other Windows manufacturers didn't even phase Dell's stock.

When it comes down to it, Dell is not significantly affected - stock price or market startegy - by Apple. When Apple has a 20% market share, then we'll talk.

Because of your simple minded approach to life I would NOT expect YOU to understand the stockmarket, for example Dell could already be down for other reason like the fact that THEY HAD TO BUY ALIEN JUST TO STAY COMPETITIVE in the first place.

So the recent move by Apple is just keeping Dell from rebounding.

Expecting direct cause and effect on the stockmarket is VERY IGNORANT, but SURPRISE, SURPRISE it does seem to be here :eek: :eek: :eek:


OK on March 16th the solution to get WinXP on Macs was posted. Some could see this as a CONFIRMATION that Windows is KING and buy Dell on this news. And if YOU look at the chart YOU will see Dell had a GOOD rally on this new, from severe doldrums ...

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=DELL&t=3m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

Then in the afternoon of the 21st the benchmarks of XP on Mac are POSTED and TO EVERYONES SURPRISE APPLE IS CURRENTLY BUILDING THE FASTEST INTEL MACHINE YOU CAN BUY ...
posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 3:40 PM
Windows XP on Macs: Tested, Benchmarked
http://gearlog.com/blogs/gearlog/archive/2006/03/21/8212.aspx

And if YOU look at the stock chart again on the 22nd there is A VERY SHARP TURN AROUND in Dell's RAPID RALLY !!!

Ever since the 21nd there have LOTS of rumors about virtualization on the Mac.

Apparently APPLE GAINS A BIG ADVANTAGE NOW IN THIS GAME BECAUSE MACS ARE NOW VIRTUALLY GUARANTEED TO COMPATIBLE WITH VISTA WHERE AS AN INTEL MACHINE BOUGHT TODAY COULD END UP LACKING :eek:

Notice also from the chart Dell tried to rally and failed :eek:

Man Dell is HURTING better DUMP THAT TURKEY :eek: :eek: :eek:

yac_moda
Apr 5, 2006, 04:32 PM
http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/][/url]
Word to the Wise
Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means itíll 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.


Mhuuaaaaaa !!!!!! :o


And LIKEWISE it means the Mac is now a KILLER MACchine for writing WINDOWS VIRUSES, that MUST be a HUGE market :eek: :eek: :eek:

bilbo--baggins
Apr 5, 2006, 04:33 PM
hey, nobody say nothing about booting OSX on pc, a solution that already exist for a while, isnt it ?

did apple is gona give us an official solution too ?:confused:

Apple allowing OS X to run on a PC would be like a husband allowing his wife to sleep with other men. :mad:

yac_moda
Apr 5, 2006, 04:35 PM
Apple allowing OS X to run on a PC would be like a husband allowing his wife to sleep with other men. :mad:

NO, NO, NO, :mad: its like a husband allowing his wife TO SLEEP WITH HIS X BEST FRIEND :D

shamino
Apr 5, 2006, 04:38 PM
I noticed this in the description too. Now if the will add live repartitioning to DIsk Utility that will be really really cool. Windows users have had that for years and us Mac users are stuck reformatting a drive when we want to adjust the partitions (unless we buy thrid party software).
Unless you've got some new version of Windows, Windows users also need third-party software to resize partitions without erasing them.

Partition Magic is not a free program, and it certainly doesn't come with Windows.

stefan15
Apr 5, 2006, 04:40 PM
Wow... impressive move by Apple, simply impressive. I wonder how much thanks we owe onmac.net to this development, however.

shamino
Apr 5, 2006, 04:42 PM
1gb of RAM on both machines. The PC has a GeForce 6200 which I know is crap. I was just surprised that the ATI 1600 mobility would offer so much more power as that one is specifically designed for notebook computers.
The fact that a chip is designed for notebooks doesn't automatically mean it is garbage. It just means that it is optimized for lower power consumption, compared with the non-notebook version of the same chip.

Today's notebook chips are much more powerful than top-of-the-line gaming video cards from a few years ago, even if they're less powerful than today's top-of-the-line gaming cards.

Electro Funk
Apr 5, 2006, 04:42 PM
has anybody tried the firmware update yet? I am afraid to do it:cool:

Just did it... did not take long and everything is working fine.... Now off to get an XP Install CD...:eek:

shamino
Apr 5, 2006, 04:43 PM
Wow... impressive move by Apple, simply impressive. I wonder how much thanks we owe onmac.net to this development, however.
Nothing. Do you seriously think Apple began development last month?

yac_moda
Apr 5, 2006, 04:43 PM
Originally Posted by baleensavage
I noticed this in the description too. Now if the will add live repartitioning to DIsk Utility that will be really really cool. Windows users have had that for years and us Mac users are stuck reformatting a drive when we want to adjust the partitions (unless we buy thrid party software).

Unless you've got some new version of Windows, Windows users also need third-party software to resize partitions without erasing them.

Partition Magic is not a free program, and it certainly doesn't come with Windows.

SilverSurfer was around for years that would allow Mac users to do this :eek: :eek: :eek:

john86
Apr 5, 2006, 04:48 PM
I found some pictures of the install and boot... http://www.flickr.com/photos/speedye/sets/72057594099504282/

I was really excited so i dunno if someone already posted it.. sorry if i did...

yac_moda
Apr 5, 2006, 04:51 PM
:eek: WINDOWS LIVES :eek:

shamino
Apr 5, 2006, 04:51 PM
SilverSurfer was around for years that would allow Mac users to do this :eek: :eek: :eek:
I think that counts as "unless we buy third-party software".

FWB's Hard Disk Toolkit also does this (as long as you formatted the drive with FWB's driver).

There's also Volume Works (http://www.subrosasoft.com/OSXSoftware/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=32&products_id=6) and Drive Genius (http://www.prosofteng.com/products/drive_genius.php?PHPSESSID=afd4210a6896d2f9b6999d9b8843b306).

But none of them are bundled either.

59031
Apr 5, 2006, 05:00 PM
Firmware updates do not appear automatically in Software Update, so you must download them manually.

Why would they not distribute them throught software update? Anyone have an idea? Just curious. That's what Software Update is for and firmware updates for PPC are distributed through Software Update so why not for Intel?

yac_moda
Apr 5, 2006, 05:05 PM
I think that counts as "unless we buy third-party software".

FWB's Hard Disk Toolkit also does this (as long as you formatted the drive with FWB's driver).

There's also Volume Works (http://www.subrosasoft.com/OSXSoftware/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=32&products_id=6) and Drive Genius (http://www.prosofteng.com/products/drive_genius.php?PHPSESSID=afd4210a6896d2f9b6999d9b8843b306).

But none of them are bundled either.

It was FREE with a lot of software, Norton Mac bundled it with their utilities anyway.

yac_moda
Apr 5, 2006, 05:08 PM
Firmware updates do not appear automatically in Software Update, so you must download them manually.

Why would they not distribute them throught software update? Anyone have an idea? Just curious. That's what Software Update is for and firmware updates for PPC are distributed through Software Update so why not for Intel?

I believe that MOST updates can take a couple of days to show up in the auto update, and they post them for download FIRST :eek:

shamino
Apr 5, 2006, 05:09 PM
It was FREE with a lot of software, Norton Mac bundled it with their utilities anyway.
That's a bogus argument, and you know it.

Using that logic, you might as well claim that Microsoft Office is free, because many PC dealers include it with new systems.

p0intblank
Apr 5, 2006, 05:09 PM
This. is. awesome.

yac_moda
Apr 5, 2006, 05:11 PM
That's a bogus argument, and you know it.

Using that logic, you might as well claim that Microsoft Office is free, because many PC dealers include it with new systems.

MAN WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM, YOU said it was NOT available for FREE and it WAS -- screw you guys, I'm go-in HOME :eek:

1dterbeest
Apr 5, 2006, 05:13 PM
When I did the firmware update, the first time I ran it I encountered something wierd. Noises, flashing screen, etc... and i had to do it again on the next startup. It took me 2 tries, but it is fine now!

milo
Apr 5, 2006, 05:14 PM
Why would they not distribute them throught software update? Anyone have an idea? Just curious. That's what Software Update is for and firmware updates for PPC are distributed through Software Update so why not for Intel?

Because you only need the firmware update if you're installing XP. If they put it in software update, it would go out to everyone, and many people would do a firmware update that they don't need.

MAN WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM, YOU said it was NOT available for FREE and it WAS -- screw you guys, I'm go-in HOME :eek:

Bundled with a computer or with other software isn't free. Just like "buy one get one free" isn't really free.

awoodhouse
Apr 5, 2006, 05:15 PM
Couple of questions:
1. Anyone know whether the beta is time-limited?
2. I'm thinking of doing it (have 17" core duo imac w/1GB RAM) as I still have a couple of windows progs...) BUT if leopard supports running xp progs in a virtualized manner that's - to me infinitely preferable. Dual booting is a PITA. Any thoughts on whether this is a myth?

Cheers
- Andrew

Craigy
Apr 5, 2006, 05:22 PM
Do you think it's possible to use a VPC image file for boot camp instead of installing from scratch?

shamino
Apr 5, 2006, 05:22 PM
MAN WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM, YOU said it was NOT available for FREE and it WAS -- screw you guys, I'm go-in HOME :eek:
What's your problem? Don't understand English?

You yourself wrote:
It was FREE with a lot of software, Norton Mac bundled it with their utilities anyway.
Only in your imagination does "bundled with a commercial product" mean the same thing as "free".

If you have to buy a copy of Norton Utilities (or anything else) to get it, then it isn't free. This isn't rocket science. This is simple logic.

richdun
Apr 5, 2006, 05:26 PM
I found some pictures of the install and boot... http://www.flickr.com/photos/speedye/sets/72057594099504282/

I was really excited so i dunno if someone already posted it.. sorry if i did...

"Macintosh Drivers for Windows XP" *cringe*

monkeyandy
Apr 5, 2006, 05:31 PM
CNET has an interesting video that shows XP running on an iMac

http://news.com.com/1606-2_3-6058207.html?part=rss&tag=6058207&subj=news

It's pretty cool that they made this a free download :)

John61254
Apr 5, 2006, 05:34 PM
All I know is, it boosted the heck out of my Apple stock!
And besides that, I think it's a great move.
You will see huge groups of "switchers" if this pans out, and Mac sales will zoom.
The only problem I see is that now you'll have much more infestation of Macs with viruses, etc.
But I'm sure Apple will take a "run Windows at your own risk" approach.
I am glad to see them developing and supporting the software rather than a third party. They probably realized it's going to happen anyway: why not build it right from the inside themselves.
Or maybe they had this in mind all along when they switched to Intel chips, and were waiting for Leopard to unveil the secret.
Too bad they couldn't have released it on April fools day!
They would have had everyone wondering which end was up!

MacNemesis
Apr 5, 2006, 05:35 PM
Couple of questions:
1. Anyone know whether the beta is time-limited?
2. I'm thinking of doing it (have 17" core duo imac w/1GB RAM) as I still have a couple of windows progs...) BUT if leopard supports running xp progs in a virtualized manner that's - to me infinitely preferable. Dual booting is a PITA. Any thoughts on whether this is a myth?

Cheers
- Andrew

It is definately not time limited as the firmware is permanent. And really the firmware is what makes this all possible in the first place. If you already had a drive partition available, you should be able to install XP from a CD with just hte firmware update. You'd need the driver CD, but if you're clever you can extract it from the package without running the setup assistant. The problem is that the Dynamic Partitioner doesn't seem to work if you already have multiple partitions. It remains to be seen whether simply having another partition will work in windows. I plan on trying.

cryptochrome
Apr 5, 2006, 05:40 PM
Couple of questions:
1. Anyone know whether the beta is time-limited?
2. I'm thinking of doing it (have 17" core duo imac w/1GB RAM) as I still have a couple of windows progs...) BUT if leopard supports running xp progs in a virtualized manner that's - to me infinitely preferable. Dual booting is a PITA. Any thoughts on whether this is a myth?

Cheers
- Andrew

Nothing specific, however Apple implies a couple of times on the Boot Camp page that this is a beta of a feature in Leopard. However, can you really call a firmware update and some drivers a feature OF Leopard? They just gave them to us for free and besides, when you're running Windows you are specifically NOT running OS X at the same time. While it has its uses it's also kind of a pain to switch between OSes. I think what we're looking at here is a strong indication that Leopard will support either:

1) Being able to run the two OSes separately but at the same time, so you can switch between them - unlikely
2) Being able to run one OS inside (or at least appear to be inside) the other (possibly switching between the two), with the ability to exchange data a la Virtual PC - drop dead certain.
3) Being able to run Windows Apps in Mac OS X without running Windows itself (and possibly Vice Versa) - man I hope so. It is by far the most useful mode, although perhaps somewhat tricky to implement. But Darwine et al have had decent progress in that regard, and they don't have Apple's vast resources, expertise, and access to the operating system. Look at the current situation - somebody finally managed to hack Windows onto a Mac, and three weeks later Apple has a vastly simpler and superior solution.

That last option has a lot of interesting implications. Presumably they would still look and run like windows apps. But if apple put together some extra windows APIs that let developers modify the appearance of their programs in an apple environment and run more cleanly, with only superficial modifications to their program, the result would be largely indistinguishable from native apps and easy to implement. All those major programs that OS X doesn't have could make their way over rather easily.

This could be counterparted with an API install for windows that lets os x programs run in THAT environment, giving developers the alternative to develop in an Cocoa/Interface Builder/Xcode fashion - which I might add are free and rather convenient - to produce mac-like and/or mac-native programs for windows as well. You could even go farther and do the same with Linux. The lack of equivalent tools from Microsoft could push developers to choose the Apple-friendly route. Exposure to OS X/Apple design philosophies and Human interface guidlines in this manner could only work to Apple's advantage.

Coupled to the sales advantage of all Intel Apples being able to cleanly run all environments, and Apple's marketshare and development community could increase dramatically.

mark88
Apr 5, 2006, 05:49 PM
January 2007 is looking very tempting for a intel Mac now...

Yep, same here. The fact of Adobe's delay and the incomplete range means I won't be buying a new Mac for quite a while.

I just hope that the new Powermac case will be expandable and allow for lots of drives.

monkeyandy
Apr 5, 2006, 05:55 PM
That last option has a lot of interesting implications. Presumably they would still look and run like windows apps. But if apple put together some extra windows APIs that let developers modify the appearance of their programs in an apple environment and run more cleanly, with only superficial modifications to their program, the result would be largely indistinguishable from native apps and easy to implement. All those major programs that OS X doesn't have could make their way over rather easily.

This could be counterparted with an API install for windows that lets os x programs run in THAT environment, giving developers the alternative to develop in an Cocoa/Interface Builder/Xcode fashion - which I might add are free and rather convenient - to produce mac-like and/or mac-native programs for windows as well. You could even go farther and do the same with Linux. The lack of equivalent tools from Microsoft could push developers to choose the Apple-friendly route. Exposure to OS X/Apple design philosophies and Human interface guidlines in this manner could only work to Apple's advantage.

Coupled to the sales advantage of all Intel Apples being able to cleanly run all environments, and Apple's marketshare and development community could increase dramatically.

I like your thinking!

It's interesting to note that Microsoft recently announced that it would support Vistas APIs on Mac OS X to allow vista type graphics on different platforms. This would surely allow for the possiblity of running Windows programs in OS X without windows? :confused:

It should be interesting to see where all this is going in the future...its all very exciting :D

barendt
Apr 5, 2006, 05:57 PM
This is great. I don't want to use windows at all, but at least to have the ability is GREAT. This makes me wonder what else could be in store with Leopard.

I also wonder if just the simple use of the software will drive more people to use OSX, kind of a "halo effect" like the iPod. What I am getting at is all the media outlets are saying "how easy" and "apple like" the software install and process is. Once some windows hard liners start using mac OSX, I wonder if they may not be swayed over by the ease of use.

petej
Apr 5, 2006, 06:00 PM
My take on this is that Apple decided not to put BIOS compatibility in the original Intel Mac EFI deliberately in an attempt to stall people from installing XP on the Mac before Leopard. Leopard is clearly going to be targeted at Vista. Vista was also expected to include EFI support. Leopard as we can now deduce will also have some pretty cool virtualisation to enable quick switching between OSX and other OSes.
So what's changed. No EFI in Vista. Therefore EFI would need BIOS compatibilty hence the firmware upgrade otherwise Leopard virtualistation would be a lame duck. The hackers got XP running in a limited form. So there was the propect for Apple of a growing number of hacked machines out in the wild that could die horribly during updates. Apple therefore had no opton but to let this one out of the labs a little early. Public Beta - more like a knee jerk stop gap.
I am now more than a little bit eager for early next year when Leopard is out in the wild - try stopping me buying a new intel Mac then.

Just to add that maybe the iPod taught Apple a thing or two about how to achieve success. MP3 support in addition to their prefferred AAC is what helped the iPod take off and the lack of MP3 support killed Sony's attempts. Some people are just itching to switch over but are terrified of what will happen to all their legacy windows apps and data. Give people all they want and they will buy. When I switched I went with VPC and gradually used it less and less. Now it's only sitting on an external firewire drive just in case.

manu chao
Apr 5, 2006, 06:09 PM
1) Being able to run the two OSes separately but at the same time, so you can switch between them - unlikely
2) Being able to run one OS inside (or at least appear to be inside) the other (possibly switching between the two), with the ability to exchange data a la Virtual PC - drop dead certain.
3) Being able to run Windows Apps in Mac OS X without running Windows itself (and possibly Vice Versa) - man I hope so. It is by far the most useful mode, although perhaps somewhat tricky to implement. But Darwine et al have had decent progress in that regard, and they don't have Apple's vast resources, expertise, and access to the operating system. Look at the current situation - somebody finally managed to hack Windows onto a Mac, and three weeks later Apple has a vastly simpler and superior solution.

I prefer 2) over 3), just to keep an incentive to develop OS X apps.

I know, it requires buying, installing, keeping up to date and running Windows, which costs additional money, time and computational resources.
However, I get most of my software for free (blanket campus license) and I do not need network access for my only Windows-only app, so I run VPC currently without network access and have not updated Windows nor Virex for a year now.

manu chao
Apr 5, 2006, 06:14 PM
MP3 support in addition to their prefferred AAC is what helped the iPod take off and the lack of MP3 support killed Sony's attempts.

Maybe you meant: 'The fact that mp3s have been supported on iPods and within iTunes since the beginning, and that this did not change when aac was introduced and made the default codec in iTunes helped the iPod to take off...'

Stridder44
Apr 5, 2006, 06:18 PM
And since this is going to be built in to 10.5 I wonder if 10.5 will be the stopping point for PPC Macs. Meaning, 10.4 is the last OS that Apple will allow to run on PPC Macs. I know, it doesn't even make sense to me as I type it, but Apple's been known to kill things off pretty fast before...

Stridder44
Apr 5, 2006, 06:21 PM
I believe that MOST updates can take a couple of days to show up in the auto update, and they post them for download FIRST :eek:



WHY do all of your POSTS have RANDOM words in CAPS?

Abu Reno
Apr 5, 2006, 06:27 PM
Can please specify what mac you are running, if so will it run on the iMac?:confused:

nataku
Apr 5, 2006, 06:29 PM
Holy.... Apple just keeps em coming! I am speechless.

hh83917
Apr 5, 2006, 06:31 PM
I hope some people come up with some benchmarks of the Macbook Pro vs regular PC laptops since the graphic drivers are available now. :rolleyes:

blitzkrieg79
Apr 5, 2006, 06:43 PM
I hope some people come up with some benchmarks of the Macbook Pro vs regular PC laptops since the graphic drivers are available now. :rolleyes:

Why would anyone think that Mac running Win XP would be faster than a PC running Win XP when both of them would have the exact same processor, graphics card, memory, hard drive... There is no more speed race between Macs and PCs, right now Mac is just a nicely packaged PC that is able to run OS X.

shamino
Apr 5, 2006, 07:05 PM
Nothing specific, however Apple implies a couple of times on the Boot Camp page that this is a beta of a feature in Leopard. However, can you really call a firmware update and some drivers a feature OF Leopard?
Why not? They consider lots of other bundled apps (like Automator, the DVD player, Disk Utility, etc.) part of Tiger.

They just gave them to us for free
Keep in mind that what they gave out was a beta (meaning pre-release), and it only works with a single-disc install of WinXP SP2. In order to become a proper product, it must support installation from any WinXP install disc, not just one specific release.

A more generalized dual-boot facility, to support other operating systems (like Win2K, DOS, Linux, and others) would also be an important feature, even if Apple doesn't bundle drivers for them all.

What they gave out was really a message, saying "here's what we're working on. Please use this instead of the internet-hacked solution that may end up screwing your firmware, creating a problem for all of us."
1) Being able to run the two OSes separately but at the same time, so you can switch between them - unlikely
Yes. Unlikely.
2) Being able to run one OS inside (or at least appear to be inside) the other (possibly switching between the two), with the ability to exchange data a la Virtual PC - drop dead certain.
I think this will remain in the purview of third-parties. I will expect features in Leopard to make VPC easier to implement. I seem to recall MS complaining that they need some OS extensions to make it work, so Apple will probably implement something along those lines.
3) Being able to run Windows Apps in Mac OS X without running Windows itself (and possibly Vice Versa) - man I hope so.
Won't ever happen. Apple is not going to design, implement, test and support Microsoft's APIs. That would be a spiral of doom for them.

As OS/2 and WINE users quickly learn, this approach means you are forever playing catch-up, as Microsoft keeps on releasing new OS features, often bundled with application service packs. With this approach, you end up never ever being 100% compatible, with apps always breaking in random annoying ways.

A Classic-like mode, where a user-installed copy of Windows runs under the covers in a virtualization environment is, IMO, the most we will ever get from Apple. Anything more will be third-party. And I think even that approach will be third-party.

Remember, Apple's goal is to sell Macs. It is not to become a universal application-support platform. Their goals and your desires are not likely to be the same.

I think we're going to be seeing a very different approach to integration. Microsoft is talking about libraries for bringing the Vista UI to Mac OS, so Windows developers can target both platforms. And rumors say that Apple is resurrecting the "Yellow Box" concept, bringing the Carbon/Cocoa APIs to Windows, so Mac developers can target both platforms.

Personally, the latter is what I want to see. I've started learning Cocoa programming, and I'd love to use this environment for Windows programming. (Heck, I'd like to use it everywhere. Unfortunately, the closest equivalent, GNUStep, is not all that stable, and doesn't have all the features Apple provides.)
Coupled to the sales advantage of all Intel Apples being able to cleanly run all environments, and Apple's marketshare and development community could increase dramatically.
Or it could completely kill Mac development.

If Mac OS can run Windows apps, what's to stop from developers from deciding "I'll just write Windows apps and tell the Mac users to run that version"?

The Yellow Box approach goes in the right direction. It allows Mac developers to target Windows systems, and may entice Windows developers to move over to the Mac APIs.

Providing Windows API support (especially if this includes binary application compatibility) in Mac OS, has the opposite effect. It encourages developers to select the Windows API as their One True API, eroding the Mac developer base.

bketchum
Apr 5, 2006, 07:09 PM
We may never know the behind-the-scenes process, but I tend to think that promoting Windows-on-Mac is a recent decision by Apple, not something planned all along. (Although it was surely on their list of "things we could do.")

I agree. Business moves often open up new business opportunities that aren't apparent beforehand. It seems to demonstrate Apple's nimbleness to react to new market demand.

shamino
Apr 5, 2006, 07:11 PM
And since this is going to be built in to 10.5 I wonder if 10.5 will be the stopping point for PPC Macs. Meaning, 10.4 is the last OS that Apple will allow to run on PPC Macs. I know, it doesn't even make sense to me as I type it, but Apple's been known to kill things off pretty fast before...
If history means anything, more than four years elapsed between the first PPC Macs and the first 68040-incompatible Mac OS.

System 7.1 was the first to support PPC. It, followed by 7.5, 7.6, 8.0 and 8.1 all supported the 68040. 8.5 was PPC-only.

Judging from this, I will expect 10.5 to be PPC-compatible. I will expect 10.6 (probably some time in 2009) to be Intel-only.

Of course, only Apple knows the plan. And they probably only have a plan for 10.5. The issue of PPC-compatible 10.6 is something that probably won't be decided for a few more years, depending on how many PPC systems are still in use at the time. (And FWIW, the extent of my caring will be 100% tied to whether I'm still using any PPC machines at the time.)

shamino
Apr 5, 2006, 07:15 PM
Why would anyone think that Mac running Win XP would be faster than a PC running Win XP when both of them would have the exact same processor, graphics card, memory, hard drive... There is no more speed race between Macs and PCs, right now Mac is just a nicely packaged PC that is able to run OS X.
True, but you probably won't be able to find a PC that is an exact match. There are always differences in motherboard design, chip timings, power management algorithms, etc. So benchmarks will still be useful - just as they are when comparing two different "made for Windows" PC with the same processor, graphics card, etc.

maximumbarkly
Apr 5, 2006, 07:26 PM
This means I install OS X on a 3/8 of the drive, Windows on 2/8, Ubuntu on 2/8, a Universal (most likely FAT32) partition on the last eigth... held together by GRUB.

I want my MacPro.

Stridder44
Apr 5, 2006, 07:26 PM
I hate the RIAA

Stridder44
Apr 5, 2006, 07:28 PM
If history means anything, more than four years elapsed between the first PPC Macs and the first 68040-incompatible Mac OS.

System 7.1 was the first to support PPC. It, followed by 7.5, 7.6, 8.0 and 8.1 all supported the 68040. 8.5 was PPC-only.

Judging from this, I will expect 10.5 to be PPC-compatible. I will expect 10.6 (probably some time in 2009) to be Intel-only.

Of course, only Apple knows the plan. And they probably only have a plan for 10.5. The issue of PPC-compatible 10.6 is something that probably won't be decided for a few more years, depending on how many PPC systems are still in use at the time. (And FWIW, the extent of my caring will be 100% tied to whether I'm still using any PPC machines at the time.)

Well said

MacNemesis
Apr 5, 2006, 07:43 PM
FYI, if you already have a second partition, you can extract the Drivers disk image and make your own drivers disk. Then with the Firmware update you can install windows on another partition. All BootCamp brings to the table is the ability to dynamically partition your drive. It's unnecessary if you already have another partition (for whatever reason). Just choose the right one upon installaton. Wicked fast on a MBP 2.16 Ghz BTW.The startup disk control panel in Windows is eerily similar to the Mac OS X one.

Compufix
Apr 5, 2006, 07:55 PM
I noticed this in the description too. Now if the will add live repartitioning to DIsk Utility that will be really really cool. Windows users have had that for years and us Mac users are stuck reformatting a drive when we want to adjust the partitions (unless we buy thrid party software).

Take a look at the Command line

diskutil resizeVolume

8-)

-Compufix

freiheit
Apr 5, 2006, 08:03 PM
So I wonder who will be the first to boot linux or media center using this?

I assume most drivers will be fine for MCE, linux will require more DIY.

I'm personally interested in Win2K support. I can't stand XP but 2K is at least decent.

seand
Apr 5, 2006, 08:05 PM
The startup disk control panel in Windows is eerily similar to the Mac OS X one.

That's part of the driver cd, I believe, so it's Apple supplied - no surprise on the similarity. I can't currently check, but I don't remember having a startup disk option on XP.

trailblazer
Apr 5, 2006, 08:10 PM
EFI and BIOS
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.


hahaa, from apple's boot camp site.

admiraldennis
Apr 5, 2006, 08:11 PM
Nothing computer-related has made me happier in many, many years.

I can't WAIT to get a MacBook Pro now.

admiraldennis
Apr 5, 2006, 08:12 PM
That's part of the driver cd, I believe, so it's Apple supplied - no surprise on the similarity. I can't currently check, but I don't remember having a startup disk option on XP.

It's Apple-written.

freiheit
Apr 5, 2006, 08:18 PM
If Mac OS can run Windows apps, what's to stop from developers from deciding "I'll just write Windows apps and tell the Mac users to run that version"?

The Yellow Box approach goes in the right direction. It allows Mac developers to target Windows systems, and may entice Windows developers to move over to the Mac APIs.

Providing Windows API support (especially if this includes binary application compatibility) in Mac OS, has the opposite effect. It encourages developers to select the Windows API as their One True API, eroding the Mac developer base.

Quite true. OS/2 users of the mid 90's can attest to that phenomenon. Why write OS/2 native programs when OS/2 could run 99% of Windows 3.1 programs? Where is OS/2 today? I do not want to see that happen to MacOS X.

weldon
Apr 5, 2006, 08:18 PM
That's part of the driver cd, I believe, so it's Apple supplied - no surprise on the similarity. I can't currently check, but I don't remember having a startup disk option on XP.
It is Apple supplied. The details are all provided on the Boot Camp page and in the installation guide.

stefan15
Apr 5, 2006, 08:20 PM
Nothing. Do you seriously think Apple began development last month?

Do you seriously think Apple would have released it this soon (before 10.5) if it wasn't for onmac.net? Besides, didn't the solution only take about 2 weeks of programming between 2 people??

Electro Funk
Apr 5, 2006, 08:57 PM
Well... Ran Bootcamp on my 20" 2ghz iMac... made the driver CD for XP....

Came to partition the drive... Allocated 15gb of 500 for win XP...

started the partition and got the error:

your startup disk cannot be partitioned because varification failed.
start up your macintosh from a mac osx install disk and use disk utility to repair your startup disk :(

freiheit
Apr 5, 2006, 09:01 PM
Well... Ran Bootcamp on my 20" 2ghz iMac... made the driver CD for XP....

Came to partition the drive... Allocated 15gb of 500 for win XP...

started the partition and got the error:

your startup disk cannot be partitioned because varification failed.
start up your macintosh from a mac osx install disk and use disk utility to repair your startup disk :(

And what happened after you started up with the OSX install disk and used Disk Utilty to repair your startup disk? Keep in mind, it is a beta program. It's probably also wise to run Repair Permissions before installing and using Boot Camp.

cnakeitaro
Apr 5, 2006, 09:08 PM
Well... Ran Bootcamp on my 20" 2ghz iMac... made the driver CD for XP....

Came to partition the drive... Allocated 15gb of 500 for win XP...

started the partition and got the error:

your startup disk cannot be partitioned because varification failed.
start up your macintosh from a mac osx install disk and use disk utility to repair your startup disk :(

Yeah I got this too. I did what it said and repaired my disk, and reran Bootcamp it worked great.

Richard Bleiche
Apr 5, 2006, 09:09 PM
With Boot Camp: 2 issues.

(1) Why on earth will on-the-fence, or even mainstream mac vendors spend the enormous time and effort to create two separate programs? Just make it for Windows and you can run it now on a mac. This may unwittingly signal the end of OS X software. To create programs in each code is a tremendous cost and undertaking.

(2) Here comes the Windows virus for mac: You infect Windows with a virus, that targets the OS X partition on your hard drive.

NOT good news in my opinion.

Electro Funk
Apr 5, 2006, 09:09 PM
Yeah I got this too. I did what it said and repaired my disk, and reran Bootcamp it worked great.

Hmmm. do i just reboot with install cd and hold down C? :o

bense27
Apr 5, 2006, 09:18 PM
With Boot Camp: 2 issues.

(1) Why on earth will on-the-fence, or even mainstream mac vendors spend the enormous time and effort to create two separate programs? Just make it for Windows and you can run it now on a mac. This may unwittingly signal the end of OS X software. To create programs in each code is a tremendous cost and undertaking.

(2) Here comes the Windows virus for mac: You infect Windows with a virus, that targets the OS X partition on your hard drive.

NOT good news in my opinion.
that is a good point. Just don't use the internet when on windows:cool:

generik
Apr 5, 2006, 09:19 PM
Apparently APPLE GAINS A BIG ADVANTAGE NOW IN THIS GAME BECAUSE MACS ARE NOW VIRTUALLY GUARANTEED TO COMPATIBLE WITH VISTA WHERE AS AN INTEL MACHINE BOUGHT TODAY COULD END UP LACKING :eek:



What's with all that caps? Shoddily manufacturer Chinese Apple "Pro" keyboard letting you up?

I still fail to see why Macs are more compatible for vista as compared to PCs, your point is moot.

bense27
Apr 5, 2006, 09:21 PM
so what's the point of having tiger and vista? It's like having Windows XP home edition and professional on the same computer.

findpankaj
Apr 5, 2006, 09:24 PM
Now that Mac computers are compatible enough to run windows, there is always a chance that PC's get into the act too - Yes, making them compatible to run OS X. That will be a bigger boost to OS switchers (From Windows to Mac). Ofcourse there is a chance that Apple loses its market share in computer Hardware, but they have the power to still outbeat the PC's (Design + looks etc).

Its a cheaper option to buy an OS X CD and load into the PC to try it out.
(Considering a larger %age of computer users already have a PC).
Is it still possible or there are serious technical hurdles in that?

I think DELL was lobbying hard for this.
How does Apple prevent this? I mean what are the restrictions?

chuchin
Apr 5, 2006, 09:27 PM
NO, NO, NO, :mad: its like a husband allowing his wife TO SLEEP WITH HIS X BEST FRIEND :D

Not at all!! It's like having your wife invite her beautiful girlfriend to sleep with you!!

jericho53
Apr 5, 2006, 09:28 PM
yea, pinch me

nubrandon
Apr 5, 2006, 09:35 PM
Un B flippin Leivable........ I never thought so soon... What a clever move by Apple. If you cant beat em use em to sell more hardware til you can. Way cooler than just another ipod.

Electro Funk
Apr 5, 2006, 09:38 PM
Hmmm. do i just reboot with install cd and hold down C? :o

Whew... ok got that fixed... now for round 2... :D

chuchin
Apr 5, 2006, 09:46 PM
Ok guys, this is apple's plan:

Just like they did it with the Ipods. First, mac only, then, anybody can buy the hardware to use with windows. Finally, world domination with itunes.

Now transpose that to laptops and desktops. First, mac only. Now you can buy any mac hardware and use windows. Finally, complete destruction of Dell, Toshiba, Lenovo, Asus, Fujitsu, etc...

findpankaj
Apr 5, 2006, 09:54 PM
Ok guys, this is apple's plan:

Just like they did it with the Ipods. First, mac only, then, anybody can buy the hardware to use with windows. Finally, world domination with itunes.

Now transpose that to laptops and desktops. First, mac only. Now you can buy any mac hardware and use windows. Finally, complete destruction of Dell, Toshiba, Lenovo, Asus, Fujitsu, etc...


I agree..

ddcrandall
Apr 5, 2006, 09:56 PM
To eliminate the known problems and frustrations with current dual-boot options, Apple should integrate switching to a different OS into Fast User Switching. Now THAT would be hot.

Young Jobs
Apr 5, 2006, 10:00 PM
We all knew this coming..
But so early?!
My dad just bought one and it arrived yesterday
The next day and all of sudden hes at costco buying windows...
I pretty much hate windows (cept for gamin) but he has like a piece of shitt toshiba that he is in love w/

ccrandall77
Apr 5, 2006, 10:04 PM
To eliminate the known problems and frustrations with current dual-boot options, Apple should integrate switching to a different OS into Fast User Switching. Now THAT would be hot.

That would be convenient, but that would probably require emulation or virtualization to work... unless it could be done within the firmware???

I wonder when FPGA's are ever going to catch on. Several years ago some company (Star-something Systems) had a desktop computer that used FPGAs that supposedly did 4-bit operations faster than Big Blue. Apparently, the FPGA could dynamically switch instruction sets so quickly that one theoretically could run any OS and any program on the computer simultaneously... or so I vaguely remember. If this is ever possible to do in the hardware, it would provide a much better solution than dual-booting or emulation.

Mechcozmo
Apr 5, 2006, 10:15 PM
But now, there is official support from Apple!

Not quite official... still beta, and they won't help you with the Windows part of it. They're helping Microsoft enough already.


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.
From the sidebar and thought it was funny. :)

nubrandon
Apr 5, 2006, 10:18 PM
If Apple can double up on its market share (which they now should) they can force a side by side comparison for windows switchers. Of course most will buy to run windows but hell... osx is included & why not screw around with it?
Its like giving a full demo version free with your high end wintel mac.
But why cant they just get a decent emulation to run windows programs on osx?

EricBrian
Apr 5, 2006, 10:27 PM
I wonder when Apple will ditch OS X and go with Windows only?

EricBrian
Apr 5, 2006, 10:29 PM
Ok guys, this is apple's plan:

Just like they did it with the Ipods. First, mac only, then, anybody can buy the hardware to use with windows. Finally, world domination with itunes.

Now transpose that to laptops and desktops. First, mac only. Now you can buy any mac hardware and use windows. Finally, complete destruction of Dell, Toshiba, Lenovo, Asus, Fujitsu, etc...

Don't think so... Apple hardware is way too expensive.

Josh396
Apr 5, 2006, 10:30 PM
I'm having the same problem a few other users reported. When I start to partition my HD, it says the start up disk needs to be repaired and to put in the OS X disk. There's only one problem, I'm currently at college and I stupidly left my disk at home. Is there any way I can repair the start up disk without the OS X disk? I tried using the disk utility on my computer but it won't let me repair the disk, only the permissions. Any ideas? Thanks.

yac_moda
Apr 5, 2006, 10:37 PM
What's your problem? Don't understand English?

You yourself wrote:
Only in your imagination does "bundled with a commercial product" mean the same thing as "free".

If you have to buy a copy of Norton Utilities (or anything else) to get it, then it isn't free. This isn't rocket science. This is simple logic.

NO ITS simple LOGIC, SOMETIMES and even in YOUR imagination does "bundled with a commercial product" mean the same thing as "free".

YOU TELL ME WHEN THIS HAPPENs -- Rocket Scientist :eek: :eek: :eek:

destroyboredom
Apr 5, 2006, 10:39 PM
No offense but I hate when people say this. Why would people buy there computers then? It takes away there differentiation. (sp?)

I wonder when Apple will ditch OS X and go with Windows only?

yac_moda
Apr 5, 2006, 10:41 PM
Not at all!! It's like having your wife invite her beautiful girlfriend to sleep with you!!

NO, NO, its like this -- Its JUST LIKE Bill Gates comes to YOUR house and DOES :eek: ...



... YOUR HOLE FAMILY :eek: :( :eek:

dalvin200
Apr 5, 2006, 10:43 PM
will this firmware update erase any data? or will all files/apps remain intact?
is this so, even if something goes wrong during update and you have to revert back to previous version of firmware?

first thing i'll do when i get my new imac (hopefully today or tomorrow) is to update all software to current (tiger etc.) and install the new firmware

thanks

yac_moda
Apr 5, 2006, 10:44 PM
What's with all that caps? Shoddily manufacturer Chinese Apple "Pro" keyboard letting you up?

I still fail to see why Macs are more compatible for vista as compared to PCs, your point is moot.

Send ME $200 in the mail and I WILL explain it to YOU :eek:

kainjow
Apr 5, 2006, 10:50 PM
will this firmware update erase any data? or will all files/apps remain intact?
is this so, even if something goes wrong during update and you have to revert back to previous version of firmware?

first thing i'll do when i get my new imac (hopefully today or tomorrow) is to update all software to current (tiger etc.) and install the new firmware

thanks
Think of it as updating your iPod's firmware. Actually, it behaves very similarly. Once you apply the firmware, there are special instructions for turning your computer off and on again. Then, you see the Apple start up logo, and a progress bar below it.

It works easy. No worries, just do it.

yac_moda
Apr 5, 2006, 10:50 PM
will this firmware update erase any data? or will all files/apps remain intact?
is this so, even if something goes wrong during update and you have to revert back to previous version of firmware?

first thing i'll do when i get my new imac (hopefully today or tomorrow) is to update all software to current (tiger etc.) and install the new firmware

thanks

FIRMware has no relationship to DRIVE SPACE.

BUT firmware updates that go WRONG have been knowN to reQuirE CLEAN installs <-- emptY HARDDRIvES :eek: :rolleyes: :mad:

THE WISE kno that the only usefull use for usefull DVD bURNERs is BACKUPs :eek: :eek: :eek:

DakotaGuy
Apr 5, 2006, 11:05 PM
Now why would companies even make Mac versions of programs or games with this being released? Seems silly at this point. They can just make a Windows version and people can run it on Windows either on their Mac or their PC.

yac_moda
Apr 5, 2006, 11:09 PM
With Boot Camp: 2 issues.

(1) Why on earth will on-the-fence, or even mainstream mac vendors spend the enormous time and effort to create two separate programs? Just make it for Windows and you can run it now on a mac. This may unwittingly signal the end of OS X software. To create programs in each code is a tremendous cost and undertaking.

(2) Here comes the Windows virus for mac: You infect Windows with a virus, that targets the OS X partition on your hard drive.

NOT good news in my opinion.

Actually people that are in the software industry and unstand Mac software engineering aren't the least bit worried about these issues :)

Now why would companies even make Mac versions of programs or games with this being released? Seems silly at this point. They can just make a Windows version and people can run it on Windows either on their Mac or their PC.

WHEN have SOFTWARE companies EVER worked this way :confused:


With Atari but NOT with any other OS.

mrplow
Apr 5, 2006, 11:12 PM
So I have XP installed, again... I had to format though, apparently xom.efi messes up the 200mb ((hidden)) boot partition and renders it impossible to install the firmware update on intel imac... no big deal I guess, tho i was quite perplexed for awhile before I decided to format and start over.

DakotaGuy
Apr 5, 2006, 11:19 PM
WHEN have SOFTWARE companies EVER worked this way :confused:


With Atari but NOT with any other OS.

Let me see here...95-97% of the world is Windows whether we like to believe that or not. My guess is developing a Mac version of anything that already has a Windows versions nets little or no profit. Companies are in business for only one reason...to make a profit. If they stop making their Mac version, it will not change sales much, why? People who own Macs will just buy the Windows version and run it. So...the same amount of sales with less development cost. You can laugh all you want at what I am saying...just wait...I can see this especially when it comes to games. Macs will slowly transistion closer and closer to becoming a Windows computer. Just give it a few years and we will see. I think the Intel move was good, but there is going to be a lot more that changes because of it, then just the chip inside the computer. Does it mean that someday there will be no Apple OS? Who knows...

yac_moda
Apr 5, 2006, 11:23 PM
With Boot Camp: 2 issues.

(1) Why on earth will on-the-fence, or even mainstream mac vendors spend the enormous time and effort to create two separate programs? Just make it for Windows and you can run it now on a mac. This may unwittingly signal the end of OS X software. To create programs in each code is a tremendous cost and undertaking.

(2) Here comes the Windows virus for mac: You infect Windows with a virus, that targets the OS X partition on your hard drive.

NOT good news in my opinion.


WHAT IF Apple uses the Transitive Technology to look at the Windows code in Windows applications running IN A FUTURE VERSION OF MAC OS X THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS APPS :eek: ...

... to optimize the CODE for Mac OS X in those WINDOWS apps so they will RUN MUCH FASTER ON A MAC then on ORDINARY WINDOWS machines :eek: :eek:

Then Macs will have an adventage that will ALWAYs sell :eek: :eek: :eek:


And there will be NO NEED to rewrite the code, JUST FOR MACs.

The interface pieces of the Windows code could also be changed with the Trans tech to look Macish !!!

GOODTHING ;)

RevMedia
Apr 5, 2006, 11:24 PM
I love it I just finished with all the drivers and it works great can't wait to show it off at work tomorrow!!!!

Electro Funk
Apr 5, 2006, 11:27 PM
Whew... ok got that fixed... now for round 2... :D

Success! :D :D :D

Even have the Sling Box streaming my DVR ;)

This is running flawlessly, although i think ultimately i would rather be able to run a few select winblows programs under osx without xp on the system...

dakis
Apr 5, 2006, 11:30 PM
Wouldn't you imagine that this news would severly cripple software developers from compiling or building for Mac platform. At least there is no real incentive to do so.


That's what I'm afraid is going to happen. Dual Booting is only the beginning - once Windows apps run directly under OS X using some sort of compatibility framework (e.g. Crossover Office, Cedega), the effects will start to show quickly, I believe.
Lokigames, a company that ported Windows games to Linux, closed about half a year after Cedega/Transgaming started to offer its compatibility software for Linux. OS/2 was gone 2 years after windows apps ran directly in OS/2...

has anybody tried the firmware update yet? I am afraid to do it:cool:

yes, no problems. Tried it on an 20" iMac.

dakis
Apr 5, 2006, 11:38 PM
Couple of questions:
1. Anyone know whether the beta is time-limited?


it said something like that in the EULA if I remember correctly but it didn't say for how long it would be running. I'd say that paragraph is just included in just about any kind of beta software. I seriously doubt they'll disable Boot Camp once the Beta runs out, leaving all the users who bought XP specifially for this in the dark.
What it also says in the EULA: the software might not be free for Tiger users once it's released.

tjwett
Apr 5, 2006, 11:39 PM
BeOS here I come! oh, how i've missed you.

Romanesq
Apr 5, 2006, 11:40 PM
And it's going to increase Mac sales right now. Where this leads to I couldn't say.

Installed the firmware on a Mac Mini solo with 512 ram. Everything as according to the instructions except there was a really loud noise from the mini and it was loud considering there are no speakers attached.

But after the boot the firmware loaded fine and rebooted into the system. I downloaded the Boot Camp software but got stuck at the disk partition. Have to go and pull out the install disk and fix that.

Can't go beyond that anyway as I don't have a usb mouse around, just the bluetooth one.

Note: Apple says bluetooth is not supported on Windows XP even with the drivers installed so that would mean you would need a non-bluetooth keyboard/mouse solution.

My intel mini sits on my stereo stand. And it doesn't want any cords.

Oh well, a pretty thrilling day for this world of computing. Puts to rest some of the 30th birthday party blues doesn't it.

This is high stakes poker baby! :cool:

dakis
Apr 5, 2006, 11:44 PM
Nothing specific, however Apple implies a couple of times on the Boot Camp page that this is a beta of a feature in Leopard. However, can you really call a firmware update and some drivers a feature OF Leopard?

Well, the firmware update and Bootcamp are two different things: the firmware update adds BIOS support to the EFI loader of the Intel Macs. That one's not a beta and will DEFINITELY not expire.
Bootcamp itself consists of a harddisk repartitioning tool and a bootloader. Bootcamp is beta and could expire I guess (although I don't think it will). Of course, now that there's BIOS support for the Intel Mac, ANY kind of boot loader can be used, including lilo. Linux also has been offering harddisk repartitioning for years so that technology is around - HFS support has to be added, of course. It'll be a matter of months, I guess, until we see third-party solutions that do the same thing as Bootcamp.

dakis
Apr 5, 2006, 11:47 PM
Well... Ran Bootcamp on my 20" 2ghz iMac... made the driver CD for XP....

Came to partition the drive... Allocated 15gb of 500 for win XP...

started the partition and got the error:

your startup disk cannot be partitioned because varification failed.
start up your macintosh from a mac osx install disk and use disk utility to repair your startup disk :(

yeah, what's the problem? same thing happened to me - just do as the Bootcamp tells you and you're up and running in 5 minutes.

dakis
Apr 5, 2006, 11:51 PM
will this firmware update erase any data? or will all files/apps remain intact?
is this so, even if something goes wrong during update and you have to revert back to previous version of firmware?

first thing i'll do when i get my new imac (hopefully today or tomorrow) is to update all software to current (tiger etc.) and install the new firmware

thanks

well, first of all: the firmware IS NOT bootcamp IS NOT the firmware! The new firmware and bootcamp are two DIFFERENT things.
The new firmware is not beta software and is supported by Apple, so you shouldn't worry too much there. Bootcamp, on the other hand, is beta. And apart from that, repartitioning your harddrive is ALWAYS risky, no matter what tool you use. ALWAYS make a backup of all your data before repartioning your harddrive, no matter whether you're using Bootcamp or any other tool on a PC.

Electro Funk
Apr 5, 2006, 11:55 PM
yeah, what's the problem? same thing happened to me - just do as the Bootcamp tells you and you're up and running in 5 minutes.

Yes... i got it fixed...

floz
Apr 6, 2006, 01:23 AM
Hey guys, calm down and let's get back to the topic.

I'm also amazed by Apple's move, and it suits my situation just perfect. I got a MBP from the first lot, i.e. I was one of the first in Germany to get one. The SuperDrive unfortunately broke 10 days after I got the Laptop, so I returned it.

Meanwhile, I moved to another country, sure as hell getting a new one ASAP. If I had had the MBP when the onmac.net solution came out, I would have tried it right away, but I'm kinda happy now that I can now have a fresh go at the 'proper' apple-solution to this.

There is a number of software pieces that I really need, but were not available, or only poorly working / crippeled versions of for OS X.

Thank you, Apple! I love you (that MPB was my 'switch' to the 'other side' btw. ;-))

Mechcozmo
Apr 6, 2006, 02:16 AM
yac_moda and all who are arguing with him/her:

You aren't going to get anywhere. You're taking up thread space. I'd express a personal opinion on this, but I don't want to get involved. So, instead, I've asked the mods to wipe out most of the last page or so.

And just so you know, yac_moda the mods can block entire subnets. It is against the Forum Rules to have more than one account, even if one is banned. Email the mods if you think you've been banned unfairly, although I don't think you'll get far; they tend to be rather good at using their powers.

Back onto the topic:
You still need to buy Windos ($250 last time I checked) to do this. Companies aren't going to count on people, er, borrowing, Windows from somewhere to do this. If you want to play a $50 game, will you buy a $250 security hole to go with it? Few companies, I suspect, will assume that their consumers will want to. And if in fact they do... that's a lot of copies of Windows that would end up being installed. A few million for the Sims... WoW.... WCIII... etc. Would a few million Mac users really buy Windows? I wouldn't. Make the game for my Mac, please! I choose to use it for a reason, y'know, and it isn't because it looks prettier (although it helps).

MacLogic
Apr 6, 2006, 02:46 AM
Apple allowing OS X to run on a PC would be like a husband allowing his wife to sleep with other men.


More like A wife inviting her nasty, skank whore girlfriend to do you in a seperate room with your wife's pemission (But, with a clause) that she is not responsible for you contracting a STD or something.;)

Platform
Apr 6, 2006, 04:15 AM
More like A wife inviting her nasty, skank whore girlfriend to do you in a seperate room with your wife's pemission (But, with a clause) that she is not responsible for you contracting a STD or something.;)

Now that even sounds Logical :D

neymo
Apr 6, 2006, 05:35 AM
and what about that :
http://www.osx86project.org/

how many layers to stop osx running on PC ?

gkhaldi
Apr 6, 2006, 06:06 AM
Installing now. Finally !!!!! :D :D :D :D

skullsplitter
Apr 6, 2006, 06:41 AM
Windows does not understand my two finger scrolling, and cant pick up my BT keyboard, which sucks. But it is very fast and fluent. MBP 2.0 w/ 2gb ram

Zaty
Apr 6, 2006, 06:43 AM
After sucessfully applying the new firmware on my Intel iMac, I ran Apple Hardware Test to check if everything's okay. AHT loaded and ran without a glitch. But when I clicked on "shut down", AHT hang and I had to force the iMac to power off. So I ran AHT again, with the same result. (I didn' t try "restart" though). So could it be the AHT is somewaht incompatible with the new firmware?

skullsplitter
Apr 6, 2006, 06:47 AM
We were successfully shutting down and booting into both OS today on a 17imac at Uni.

Ross Henderson
Apr 6, 2006, 07:45 AM
This is what I have been waiting for. Not for Windows, that's junk, but for the ability to run GNU/Linux on a MacBook. The new firmware was one of the best things I've ever seen Apple do in a long time.

JasonElise1983
Apr 6, 2006, 08:26 AM
funny....
everyone always complains and moans about how bad windows is, and how Mac is the better operating system, but give mac users a chance to run windows on their computer natively and everyone is all or it. Oh well, i guess i'm one of them, because i think what apple did is great and will definately get more switchers.

kingtj
Apr 6, 2006, 09:01 AM
It has nothing to do with the notion that perhaps, Apple just started development of the XP boot capabilities "last month". The point is, Apple was likely not going to "show their hand" on any of this until OS X Leopard was released. But the hackers coming along as far and as quickly as they did on making XP boot on Intel Macs drove Apple to release a beta of *their* version of it. Otherwise, they'd simply look bad - because the masses would think they just "copied" off the other guys/stole their code.


Nothing. Do you seriously think Apple began development last month?

aristobrat
Apr 6, 2006, 09:42 AM
It has nothing to do with the notion that perhaps, Apple just started development of the XP boot capabilities "last month". The point is, Apple was likely not going to "show their hand" on any of this until OS X Leopard was released. But the hackers coming along as far and as quickly as they did on making XP boot on Intel Macs drove Apple to release a beta of *their* version of it. Otherwise, they'd simply look bad - because the masses would think they just "copied" off the other guys/stole their code.
I mostly agree with your thoughts, although if Apple had released their solution later, I hope most folks would have realised that Apple's solution (adding BIOS support to the firmware) is totally different from the hackers solution. :)

Peace
Apr 6, 2006, 12:16 PM
funny....
everyone always complains and moans about how bad windows is, and how Mac is the better operating system, but give mac users a chance to run windows on their computer natively and everyone is all or it. Oh well, i guess i'm one of them, because i think what apple did is great and will definately get more switchers.

I've done the dual boot also but I can guarantee you OS X is a far superior O/S.

ymmv ;)

yac_moda
Apr 6, 2006, 12:19 PM
It has nothing to do with the notion that perhaps, Apple just started development of the XP boot capabilities "last month". The point is, Apple was likely not going to "show their hand" on any of this until OS X Leopard was released. But the hackers coming along as far and as quickly as they did on making XP boot on Intel Macs drove Apple to release a beta of *their* version of it. Otherwise, they'd simply look bad - because the masses would think they just "copied" off the other guys/stole their code.

NO WAY YOU guys are getting the LAST PART ALL WRONG :eek:

The reason Apple needed to JUMP on this QUICKLY is because the MacBook Pro BENCHMARKED AS THE FAST WINDOWS XP MACchine ON THE PLANET :eek: :eek:

So they needed to ship that capability STANDARD so they can get OTHER VERY CREDIBLE BENCHMARKS with XP ...


... BECAUSE THOSE FACTS WILL SELL MACs LIKE CRAZY :eek: :eek: :eek:


At last Apple is responding to market opportunities like an ordinary WELL RUN COMPANY !!!

boncellis
Apr 6, 2006, 12:31 PM
I really don't know what to make of the timing of this release. On the one hand it would seem Apple should take advantage of this groundbreaking capability with a media event, perhaps coinciding with a belated birthday celebration. However, unveiling this now may prove the superiority of Apple hardware and ramp up the momentum for a new release at WWDC.

Either way, I find the proper retort to any MS fans criticizing Apple users for the added BIOS support and Windows capability on Macintosh machines is to point out that they seem to run XP better than anything else out there.

bgd78
Apr 6, 2006, 04:48 PM
Provided that I have updated the EFI firmware and that I have the BootCamp driver disc, can I simply install Windows XP directly on the Mac just like I would on any PC, in other words without the BootCamp bootloader utility or dual-boot setup?

As for the reason why, I use a Windows utility that installs its own bootloader for Windows XP and which doesn't work with any other kind of bootloaders, multi-boot setups or partitioned drives...

Mechcozmo
Apr 6, 2006, 06:45 PM
As for the reason why, I use a Windows utility that installs its own bootloader for Windows XP and which doesn't work with any other kind of bootloaders, multi-boot setups or partitioned drives...

I'm gonna guess that Boot Camp handles the Mac/Windows bridge between things... Macs use a different partition scheme, which changed again with EFI, and that must be held in check so that Windows doesn't mess up the Mac side of things.

Besides, the EFI bootloader (like the OF bootloader before it) isn't the first sector of your hard drive but rather a seperate part of the computer. Try it, but keep an OS X install disk handy.

Supa_Fly
Apr 6, 2006, 09:21 PM
Oh baby with all of you still making me drool 3yrs & counting (brief 3 month excursion to Mac OS X 10.1.5) are any of you just waiting to see Apple present say 4 machines (Gateway, Dell, Dell's Alienware, etc) vs there's for WinXP performance on a Mac?!

Match this:

Photoshop on WinXP > Dell vs Alienware vs Gateway vs Apple
& Other OS Apps (likely on equal spec laptops just to show the disparity.)

Then offset that performance of doing the same Windows based task (ie movie to DVD authoring, etc) vs Mac OS X's tools to do the same and show the quality & timing variable.

Then finally bring out the BIG guns and show them up .... with ....

Alienware's then current (Aug '06) Top Desktop.
Dell's then current top XPS system.
Gateway's then current top Desktop.
vs
Apple's new DUAL quad-core Mac! (30th Anniversary celebrated machine)!!;)

Sorry with so many specific threads already showing this I wasnt sure if a new thread or post would be better.:D

PS this is the final straw .... no more cool cellphones (after the N80 - I have a cellphone fetish) until the MacBookPro is mine!

AidenShaw
Apr 7, 2006, 09:24 AM
...
Dell's then current top XPS system.
Gateway's then current top Desktop.
vs
Apple's new DUAL quad-core Mac!
You mean

Dell's new DUAL quad-core workstation.
Gateway's new DUAL quad-core workstation.
vs
Apple's new DUAL quad-core Mac!

Everybody gets Intel chips at the same time - didn't you notice that Apple was the last vendor to announce Yonah systems? (By a few days, and only because Jobs wanted the spotlight to himself at MWSF...)

bretm
Apr 7, 2006, 10:02 AM
You mean

Dell's new DUAL quad-core workstation.
Gateway's new DUAL quad-core workstation.
vs
Apple's new DUAL quad-core Mac!

Everybody gets Intel chips at the same time - didn't you notice that Apple was the last vendor to announce Yonah systems? (By a few days, and only because Jobs wanted the spotlight to himself at MWSF...)

And that's a good thing. We need to level the playing field on the chips so we can compare Apples to PCs. Let the OS and the design be the focus. And since Macs can run Windows, that's not a hurdle either. Mac: awesome design, OS, and can run windows. PC: can run windows. 3-1 Apple wins. Yeah they cost more. So what? You get what you pay for.

SwitchingtoMAC
Apr 7, 2006, 10:14 AM
being a long time PC user who was intorduced to macs via my job, i have to say that this is very cool, i tested a set up on a 17" imac bootcamp worked perfectly. i have also installed some pc apps like photoshop cs and ms office, usually these tkae a bout 5-10mintes each when i set them up on my pc at home but both finished on the imac 2 minutes and they have all been running very smoolty since i have been leaning to MAC ever since i started working on them but was hesitant to change beacue i need cetain apps that are PC only, but now that this option is available the MAC is looking better and better

milo
Apr 7, 2006, 12:26 PM
Couple of questions:
1. Anyone know whether the beta is time-limited?

http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/terms.html
The term of this License shall commence upon your installation or use of the Apple Software and will terminate automatically without notice from Apple upon the next commercial release of the Apple Software, or September 30, 2007, whichever occurs first.

And since this is going to be built in to 10.5 I wonder if 10.5 will be the stopping point for PPC Macs. Meaning, 10.4 is the last OS that Apple will allow to run on PPC Macs.

Apple has already announced that 10.5 will be universal. They pretty much have to, they'll be selling PPC macs until at least a month or two before 10.5 ships, and may still be selling them.

I wonder when Apple will ditch OS X and go with Windows only?

The same day they decide to no longer make a profit and go out of business.

My guess is developing a Mac version of anything that already has a Windows versions nets little or no profit.

If that were true, why is any company making a mac version of anything? There are millions of mac users, that's millions of potential sales. With a game, if you sell 100k copies at $50 bucks a pop, that's five million in sales. If a company can't PORT a game for five million bucks, they're completely incompitent.

didn't you notice that Apple was the last vendor to announce Yonah systems?

But weren't they the first to ship? Did anyone else ship yonah systems before the imac?

shamino
Apr 7, 2006, 04:35 PM
You mean

Dell's new DUAL quad-core workstation.
Gateway's new DUAL quad-core workstation.
vs
Apple's new DUAL quad-core Mac!
Assuming there will be a comparable system.

Gateway and Dell only ship dual-processors in servers (which have minimal graphics and sound capabilities.) And those servers usually cost quite a lot more than PowerMac systems.

Apple is the only company I know of that ships dual-processor boxes with good graphics and surround sound as standard equipment, and for less than $5000. To get this in a PC, you almost always have to go the "build it yourself" route.

milo
Apr 7, 2006, 04:40 PM
Gateway and Dell only ship dual-processors in servers (which have minimal graphics and sound capabilities.)

Not true. Both are shipping the exact same core duos that Apple is shipping. You didn't know that?

And until Intel came along, APPLE only shipped multi processor machines in their most expensive configs. The quad is over three grand.

Now that we're on intel, expect the exact same chip configs from apple and everyone else. That's the whole point of the transition.

shamino
Apr 7, 2006, 04:49 PM
Not true. Both are shipping the exact same core duos that Apple is shipping. You didn't know that?
Those are single processor boxes. The post I was referring to said dual quad-core processors. Well, those chips don't exist yet, but the nearest equivalent are dual dual-core. Which Apple ships (in the PMG5), and everybody else only ships in servers.

A single core-duo chip is not the same thing.
And until Intel came along, APPLE only shipped multi processor machines in their most expensive configs. The quad is over three grand.
And the closest equivalent from Gateway is a dual dual-Xeon server, which costs over $4000 and has pathetic graphics and no sound. What's your point?
Now that we're on intel, expect the exact same chip configs from apple and everyone else. That's the whole point of the transition.
Except it won't happen. As I pointed out (and you ignored), the PC vendors don't ship anything even close to a PMG5, except in their server products, which cost more and don't have any desktop-oriented features.

Why do you think this will change when the PowerMac goes Intel? Apple will be shipping dual Core-Duo (or dual dual-Xeon, or dual-Merom, or whatever else is popular at the time) chips, and the PC makers will only ship them in servers.

milo
Apr 7, 2006, 05:23 PM
Those are single processor boxes. The post I was referring to said dual quad-core processors. Well, those chips don't exist yet, but the nearest equivalent are dual dual-core. Which Apple ships (in the PMG5), and everybody else only ships in servers.

Why do you think this will change when the PowerMac goes Intel? Apple will be shipping dual Core-Duo (or dual dual-Xeon, or dual-Merom, or whatever else is popular at the time) chips, and the PC makers will only ship them in servers.

Semantics. From a consumer standpoint, there's no difference in performance or use between a dual core chip or two single core chips.

The reason things change with intel is because intel is finally coming out with dual (and more) core chips that aren't insanely expensive. If Apple had to use Xeon, their quad machine would be $5000 too. The xeon and comparable chips are way more expensive than dual core G5's. Upcoming dual and quad chips from intel are much more affordable (just like the core duos are now) and will be used much more widely, by apple and by everyone else.

Not to mention that peecee companies haven't had to go with multi processor systems to compete with apple's boxes. In most cases a single core intel chip was competitive with a dual core G5. With everybody on intel, it's a level playing field. Pricing depends on build cost plus markup. Apple will have the same build cost as everyone else, what makes you so sure that nobody else will match apple's specs or beat their price for high end workstations?

shamino
Apr 7, 2006, 05:54 PM
Semantics. From a consumer standpoint, there's no difference in performance or use between a dual core chip or two single core chips.
Are you deliberately ignoring what I write or are you having a problem with the English?

The thread I was replying to was talking about dual multi-core systems, and you keep on talking about single-CPU systems

The fact is, whether you care you admit it or not, is that Apple is the only company selling this kind of hardware with multimedia capabilities and they are doing it for a much lower price. And even fron a consumer standpoint, there is a difference between a quad-core system and a dual-core system.
The reason things change with intel is because intel is finally coming out with dual (and more) core chips that aren't insanely expensive. If Apple had to use Xeon, their quad machine would be $5000 too.
The PPC 970 isn't exactly a bargain-basement processor either.

And dual-CPU PC's don't have to be Xeon based. All Pentium-series chips can work in dual-CPU configurations. But you have never seen a non-server box sold in this configuration, despite the easy availability of motherboards.
The xeon and comparable chips are way more expensive than dual core G5's.
Really? Last I looked, the retail price was about the same. And if you're going to quote wholesale bulk-purchase prices, Intel offers the same discounts that IBM does. Do you really think 50% of the price of a MacBook is for that Core Duo chip?
Upcoming dual and quad chips from intel are much more affordable (just like the core duos are now) and will be used much more widely, by apple and by everyone else.
And Apple's PowerMac line will have models featuring two of them, for about $3000-3500, while the PC vendors will only sell that configuration in $4000-5000 server systems.

You have not provided any evidence to suggest that this will not be the case.
Not to mention that peecee companies haven't had to go with multi processor systems to compete with apple's boxes. In most cases a single core intel chip was competitive with a dual core G5. With everybody on intel, it's a level playing field. Pricing depends on build cost plus markup. Apple will have the same build cost as everyone else, what makes you so sure that nobody else will match apple's specs or beat their price for high end workstations?
Because, historically, the PC market has never made high-end workstations. They've made run-of-the-mill desktops and high-end servers. The high-end workstations you find are either generic PC's with off-the-shelf upgrades, or they are not PC-based (like those from Sun and SGI). And in either case, they end up costing more than Apple's PowerMac line.

What makes you think they're all of a sudden going to switch their focus from cutting costs to maximizing performance? To Apple, this is a big transformation. To the rest of the industry, the Core Duo is just another chip that will be distributed in the same old PC's that they've been making up until now.