PDA

View Full Version : Apple Releases Boot Camp 1.2




nylon
Mar 28, 2007, 03:20 PM
http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

Changes in Boot Camp 1.2 beta

Boot Camp 1.2 beta contains several updates and is intended for all new and previous Boot Camp beta users.

Boot Camp 1.2 beta includes:

* Support for Windows Vista (32-bit)
* Updated drivers, including but not limited to trackpad, AppleTime (synch), audio, graphics, modem, iSight camera
* Support the Apple Remote (works with iTunes and Windows Media Player)
* A Windows system tray icon for easy access to Boot Camp information and actions
* Improved keyboard support for Korean, Chinese, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish, Russian, and French Canadian
* Improved Windows driver installation experience
* Updated documentation and Boot Camp on-line help in Windows
* Apple Software Update (for Windows XP and Vista)



killmoms
Mar 28, 2007, 03:22 PM
Nice! And the day before my copy of Vista Ultimate shows up in the mail!

Oh Apple, you treat me so nice. :D <3

Laslo Panaflex
Mar 28, 2007, 03:25 PM
Good, I could never get vista to install on my Mac Pro, it always told me there was no drive the met the requirements . . .

pknz
Mar 28, 2007, 03:26 PM
Radical. My first BootCamp update.

psychofreak
Mar 28, 2007, 03:30 PM
So what new stuff (apart from stability) could come in the final Leopard version?

Parallels/Fusion hypermix?

nateDEEZY
Mar 28, 2007, 03:56 PM
I'm really curious on how the update is going to work, I can't wait to get home.

I'm assuming you download it, install the assistant and just burn a new drivers cd and thats it?

Edit: Well d'uh after clicking the link at the bottom it just said exactly what i said, well kinda ;)

MacRumors
Mar 28, 2007, 04:02 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple has posted (http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/) a new version of Boot Camp today. Boot Camp 1.2 brings several updates, including Windows Vista support.

Boot Camp allows owners of Intel-based Macs to dual-boot their Macs into Windows and Mac OS X. The new version offers these features:

- Support for Windows Vista (32-bit)
- Updated drivers, including but not limited to trackpad, AppleTime (synch), audio, graphics, modem, iSight camera
- Support the Apple Remote (works with iTunes and Windows Media Player)
- A Windows system tray icon for easy access to Boot Camp information and actions
- Improved keyboard support for Korean, Chinese, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish, Russian, and French Canadian
- Improved Windows driver installation experience
- Updated documentation and Boot Camp on-line help in Windows
- Apple Software Update (for Windows XP and Vista)

akac
Mar 28, 2007, 04:03 PM
I'd like to hear if this conflicts with BootCamp Parallels support...

Eidorian
Mar 28, 2007, 04:05 PM
Looks like you might not need to reinstall Windows to do this update. :eek:

Updating to Boot Camp 1.2 beta
If you previously installed Boot Camp beta, you can easily update to Boot Camp 1.2 beta. You don't need to partition your hard drive again (unless you want to change its size) or reinstall your Macintosh and Windows software or documents, but it's very important to update the Boot Camp Assistant software, create a new Mac Drivers CD and install the updated software it contains onto Windows. Complete instructions are provided in the Installation and Setup Guide included with the Boot Camp 1.2 beta software.

~Shard~
Mar 28, 2007, 04:05 PM
Nice to see, but I assume this is just a stop gap until we get a full-blown version with Leopard?

Maccus Aurelius
Mar 28, 2007, 04:06 PM
I don't see how this affects VM other than simply being more attractive. Considering the price of Parallels, this is a better option, since you get don't have to divvy up the resources for each OS.

All of the boot camp iterations were stop gaps to Leopard. Being the one app in OS X to provide the best of both worlds it requires lots of product testing. So far Bootcamp has been fantastic for me. A finished product will no doubt be simply supoib.

cwedl
Mar 28, 2007, 04:07 PM
Thats funny, I've only just downloaded 1.1.2 and installed xp! nevermind, it will do what I need it to do, rum win xp and virtual machine 2007 so I can study for my server exams!

Dagless
Mar 28, 2007, 04:07 PM
Brilliant! Downloading now.

I don't know who's to blame but Bluetooth in XP just plain sucks. I have to toggle the power switch on my keyboard and repeatedly press Caps Lock to see when I'm connected. Plus no BT support on boot up? You can't even turn it on in time to "press a key to cancel scandisk".

Either way, good seeing Apple improving Bootcamp.

reckless_0001
Mar 28, 2007, 04:08 PM
whoaa, is today October? :p :rolleyes:

~Shard~
Mar 28, 2007, 04:10 PM
whoaa, is today October? :p :rolleyes:

What do you mean? What is the significance of October? :confused:

studiomusic
Mar 28, 2007, 04:11 PM
whoaa, is today October? :p :rolleyes:

Exactly!
Let's see some retractions now...

reckless_0001
Mar 28, 2007, 04:12 PM
What do you mean? What is the significance of October? :confused:

An earlier report that, support for Vista in Boot Camp wouldn't be possible untill October. So, what's the weather like down in Regina? :D

05elstonc
Mar 28, 2007, 04:13 PM
October was the month DigiTimes believed Leopard would be delayed to, due to Apple's inability to get Vista to work with bootcamp. This update proves they have bootcamp working with Vista just fine.

reckless_0001
Mar 28, 2007, 04:16 PM
October was the month DigitTimes believed Leopard would be delayed to, due to Apple's inability to get Vista to work with bootcamp. This update proves they have bootcamp working with Vista just fine.

Digitimes not DigitTimes, I know you probably didn't mean to mistype. :o

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2595

http://digitimes.com/systems/a20070322PD214.html

05elstonc
Mar 28, 2007, 04:16 PM
What is even more interesting is that Apple released this update. Why release it so early? They could have held off for Leopard's release. Not sure if it means things are moving swiftly, or if they know Leopard will be released at the tail end of their schedule and want to keep people from sending irate emails.

OwlsAndApples
Mar 28, 2007, 04:17 PM
Cool...but is there so much advantage of installing vista over XP when there is tiger already? Many of Vistas advantages over Xp can be found in Mac OS X...

mgworek
Mar 28, 2007, 04:17 PM
since when was vista not possible?

I had vista's last RC running with bootcamp months ago....

thejadedmonkey
Mar 28, 2007, 04:19 PM
Good, I've been meaning to upgrade to Vista for a while, but I've been wanting drivers first.

Modrak
Mar 28, 2007, 04:20 PM
since when was vista not possible?

I had vista's last RC running with bootcamp months ago....

Possible != supported.

Xapplimatic
Mar 28, 2007, 04:20 PM
OK, now that that's out of the way, we can be SURE that LEOPARD WILL BE ON TIME! lol

reckless_0001
Mar 28, 2007, 04:22 PM
since when was vista not possible?

I had vista's last RC running with bootcamp months ago....

Yah, but it lacked some drivers that would provide full functionality of your Mac.

For example; right click support with MacBook/Pro trackpads.

appleguy
Mar 28, 2007, 04:24 PM
Just run the install as per normal
once you have made the driver CD quit.

Osarkon
Mar 28, 2007, 04:29 PM
OK, now that that's out of the way, we can be SURE that LEOPARD WILL BE ON TIME! lol

That could well be what's sparked this release. All the recent news about the OS being delayed whilst they get vista running in it has now been disproven and everyone will expect the spring release once again.

crossifixio
Mar 28, 2007, 04:33 PM
Great news not because it supports vista but that it wont be delayed like it was reported a few days ago. My money is waiting for Leopard :D

Small White Car
Mar 28, 2007, 04:39 PM
Cool...but is there so much advantage of installing vista over XP when there is tiger already? Many of Vistas advantages over Xp can be found in Mac OS X...

Indeed.

The ONLY thing I need my Boot Camp/Parallels Windows to do on my Mac is run Windows programs.

XP does that perfectly well. I see no reason to tell ANY Mac user to use the resource-draining Vista on their Mac when XP can do the job they need with a lot less stress on their system.

justflie
Mar 28, 2007, 04:41 PM
I just downloaded it and it would not mount. I had to mount it in Toast and then it would hang just before beginning the install. Anyone else having issues? I deleted the image and am downloading it again, maybe it was a bad download...?:confused:

edit: all set, I downloaded it again and it works fine.

waynergy
Mar 28, 2007, 04:42 PM
How about 64-bit Vista?

psychofreak
Mar 28, 2007, 04:44 PM
Indeed.

The ONLY thing I need my Boot Camp/Parallels Windows to do on my Mac is run Windows programs.

XP does that perfectly well. I see no reason to tell ANY Mac user to use the resource-draining Vista on their Mac when XP can do the job they need with a lot less stress on their system.

Some games will be Vista only (e.g. Halo2)

shawnce
Mar 28, 2007, 04:45 PM
What is even more interesting is that Apple released this update. Why release it so early? They could have held off for Leopard's release. Not sure if it means things are moving swiftly, or if they know Leopard will be released at the tail end of their schedule and want to keep people from sending irate emails.

The seeded it to get feedback from customers before shipping the final version in Leopard. Recall Windows environments are wildly more varied then your typical Mac OS X environment so Apple needs this feedback to find issues that they themselves cannot feasibility test (without a large cost).

slffl
Mar 28, 2007, 04:46 PM
Nice! Between this and Parallels being able to use the Bootcamp partition, I'm in heaven :)

GFLPraxis
Mar 28, 2007, 04:48 PM
Did they finally fix that trackpad bug where the trackpad randomly locks up for a while on my MacBook? Hope so, it might make it usable again!

Airforce
Mar 28, 2007, 04:49 PM
Did they finally fix that trackpad bug where the trackpad randomly locks up for a while on my MacBook? Hope so, it might make it usable again!

Hey, I thought this was a hardware defect! Guess I'm not alone....Good to know.

macjay
Mar 28, 2007, 04:51 PM
The seeded it to get feedback from customers before shipping the final version in Leopard. Recall Windows environments are wildly more varied then your typical Mac OS X environment so Apple needs this feedback to find issues that they themselves cannot feasibility test (without a large cost).

Also, this now makes Macs a possibility for those looking to upgrade to a Vista PC.

~Shard~
Mar 28, 2007, 04:58 PM
An earlier report that, support for Vista in Boot Camp wouldn't be possible untill October. So, what's the weather like down in Regina? :D

Ah, gotcha, I wasn't aware of this - thanks! :)

As for the weather, it's been a mixed bag lately - lots of sun, highs in the 70s, then rain, cooler temps and storm watches! Ah, March is a fun month... :D Where exactly are you in this fine country? :cool:

superleccy
Mar 28, 2007, 05:00 PM
Ugh. Vista.

Hooray for Apple, it can't do them any harm.:)

And hooray for those users that want / need this feature. :) :D

And double hooray because it seems to scotch the Digitimes Leopard Delay rumors. :) :D :cool:

But I'll be keeping Vi$ta well away from my nice shiny MBP when I get it. I've just spent the last two days (and I ain't done yet) setting up a Vista laptop for a relative and I now feel physically sick as a direct result. :(

SL

SiliconAddict
Mar 28, 2007, 05:02 PM
So what new stuff (apart from stability) could come in the final Leopard version?

Parallels/Fusion hypermix?

I pray for OS X file system support in XP/Vista. Limited to document folders only though. 99.89% of viruses out there are designed around infecting the OS and exe files. Very few viruses actually infect data files now a days, and none are cross platform compatible.
While there are 3rd party apps for Windows that can read HFS partitions the current versions for Windows is twitchy on a MBP.

SiliconAddict
Mar 28, 2007, 05:02 PM
Ugh. Vista.

But I'll be keeping Vi$ta well away from my nice shiny MBP when I get it. I've just spent the last two days (and I ain't done yet) setting up a Vista laptop for a relative and I now feel physically sick as a direct result. :(

SL

Grow up. :rolleyes:

Also, this now makes Macs a possibility for those looking to upgrade to a Vista PC.

Very few people are upgrading their system because of Vista. They are just ready to upgrade and Vista just happens to be pretty much all they can get now. How do I know this? I'm in "average" consumers homes day in and day out. People ask questions.


How about 64-bit Vista?


Don't go anywhere near it. Seriously. You think Vista 32-bit has software compatibility issues. Its nothing compared to the 64-bit version.

reckless_0001
Mar 28, 2007, 05:06 PM
Ah, gotcha, I wasn't aware of this - thanks! :)

As for the weather, it's been a mixed bag lately - lots of sun, highs in the 70s, then rain, cooler temps and storm watches! Ah, March is a fun month... :D Where exactly are you in this fine country? :cool:

North of P.A. ;)

Where'd my previous posts go? I don't think there was anything wrong with them. :confused:

edit: nevermind i read the rules. :)

MonksMac
Mar 28, 2007, 05:12 PM
I can't wait to try this new version of Bootcamp on my Mini! Hopefully everything goes okay.:apple:

kalisphoenix
Mar 28, 2007, 05:12 PM
Very few people are upgrading their system because of Vista. They are just ready to upgrade and Vista just happens to be pretty much all they can get now. How do I know this? I'm in "average" consumers homes day in and day out. People ask questions.

*nods* People tend to ask questions when I'm in their houses day in and day out too.

LimeiBook86
Mar 28, 2007, 05:15 PM
The drivers disc for Windows is much better now! Before all the drivers were in one package, so if you had to re-install one driver, say for the Wireless card, you would have to repeat the whole process. Not anymore!

Each driver is it's own executable file, but there is still a Macintosh Drivers for Windows.MSI file which launches an installer for everything. But, this way if you have to install one driver by itself, you now can with ease. :) :D

For me this is a much welcome change, half the time I've installed Boot Camp on a Mac I get driver problems making me re-install drivers, this'll make things easier. ;)

Nerdowl
Mar 28, 2007, 05:24 PM
Ah been waiting for this - as a Computer Science Degree student we get Vista Business free from the MSNDAA so I figure what the hell I can run some windows stuff then. :apple: is still a better OS though ;)

Mr. Dee
Mar 28, 2007, 05:25 PM
Grow up. :rolleyes:



Very few people are upgrading their system because of Vista. They are just ready to upgrade and Vista just happens to be pretty much all they can get now. How do I know this? I'm in "average" consumers homes day in and day out. People ask questions.





Don't go anywhere near it. Seriously. You think Vista 32-bit has software compatibility issues. Its nothing compared to the 64-bit version.

On the contrary, driver support for Vista x64 is pretty much on par with Vista x86. I own a Ferrari 5000 laptop running Vista x64 and all the drivers are available and working well. My other system at home, an AMD Semprom PC also runs it driver support was no problem. Apple might be saving 64-bit support through BC in Leopard as incentive to upgrade.

Vista x64 has a lot of advantages, but not to the casual user, examples include, support for larger amounts of memory, up to 128 GBs of it, plus 16 TBs of virtual memory. Kernel Patch protection which makes it way more secure than Vista x86. Only allows signed drivers, again, makes it way more secure than x86 Vista. One thing though, its LOVES memory, I recommend a minimum 2 GBs to run it smoothly and even then its not enough.

thesnowman16
Mar 28, 2007, 05:27 PM
Just noticed a typo in the spash screen after you click download on the website.... "Boot Camp is just one of many new features in Mac OS X Leopard, the next major release of Mac OS X, due out by Spring of 2007"

See if you can spot it ;)


PS. If only it was true :apple:

twoodcc
Mar 28, 2007, 05:34 PM
well this is good news.....now maybe this means that we are one step closer to Leopard!

Donnacha
Mar 28, 2007, 05:35 PM
Just noticed a typo in the spash screen after you click download on the website.... "Boot Camp is just one of many new features in Mac OS X Leopard, the next major release of Mac OS X, due out by Spring of 2007"

See if you can spot it ;)


PS. If only it was true :apple:

Well spotted!

If it was true, Apple stock would have doubled by now :D

Airforce
Mar 28, 2007, 05:36 PM
Well dang, still no feature to see OS X's drive under Windows or the ability to write to window's drive from OS X......:mad:

GFLPraxis
Mar 28, 2007, 05:44 PM
Hey, I thought this was a hardware defect! Guess I'm not alone....Good to know.

I hope not, lol :P

It doesn't do it in Mac OS X, only in Windows, and only since I installed Apple's previous Boot Camp drivers (that added two-fingered scrolling). The mouse locks up because the trackpad for some reason thinks two fingers are touching it even when only one is (you can't move the mouse, but you can still scroll).

It didn't do it in Windows with the original Boot Camp drivers (before the two-fingered scrolling).

GFLPraxis
Mar 28, 2007, 05:45 PM
Well dang, still no feature to see OS X's drive under Windows or the ability to write to window's drive from OS X......:mad:

Windows can not see OS X's drive because it lacks the capability to read HFS. There's a program called MacDrive to add that.

Mac OS X can write to Windows drives if you chose FAT32 during installation. I did. You must have chose NTFS, which Mac OS X cannot write to.

Airforce
Mar 28, 2007, 05:49 PM
Windows can not see OS X's drive because it lacks the capability to read HFS. There's a program called MacDrive to add that.

Mac OS X can write to Windows drives if you chose FAT32 during installation. I did. You must have chose NTFS, which Mac OS X cannot write to.

Well that just sucks. FAT32 is horrible :mad:

Mgkwho
Mar 28, 2007, 05:54 PM
well that's nice!

I only wish they would've released it on Tuesday to make us feel better and make their stock go up!

-=|Mgkwho

Westside guy
Mar 28, 2007, 06:00 PM
Some games will be Vista only (e.g. Halo2)

Well other than games Microsoft owns (read: bought out) - I doubt anything will be Vista only.

Westside guy
Mar 28, 2007, 06:01 PM
Kernel Patch protection which makes it way more secure than Vista x86.

Kernel patch protection has already been circumvented...

Eidorian
Mar 28, 2007, 06:09 PM
It looks like we don't get any video card drivers. I still show the original ones from March 2006.

It looks like the update was very painless and didn't even require the removal of the previous 1.1.2 drivers and support software. Here are some nice additions! :D

- Apple Remote Support
- Apple Software Update (Already trying to push iTunes and Quicktime for Windows as well!)
- Apple Boot Camp Help Documentation
- No Unknown hardware in Device Manager

acslater017
Mar 28, 2007, 06:22 PM
Well spotted!

If it was true, Apple stock would have doubled by now :D

I don't see it

saxondale.
Mar 28, 2007, 06:22 PM
anyone tried this with x64 vista?

Eidorian
Mar 28, 2007, 06:22 PM
anyone tried this with x64 vista?I don't see any mention of 64-bit drivers for Vista.

cgc
Mar 28, 2007, 06:29 PM
I wish Apple would allow BootCamp to create partitions and allow us to install other OSes (e.g. Ubuntu) and triple boot (or quad boot...etc.). Parallels is ok but limiting and doesn't make the most of the hardware.

Peace
Mar 28, 2007, 06:34 PM
The install disk works perfectly now.Everything in the device manager shows as working..

I can't get the iSight to work under windows movie maker though.Anyone else have this problem?

All in all.A good update.

inkhead
Mar 28, 2007, 06:35 PM
This effects all VMs in any virtualization software for one reason. Activation. You may have issues keeping your copy of windows activated. Because Vista has a different activation scheme. With XP, Parallels writes out special code when you close to make sure it stays activated under bootcamp and parallels.

Lancetx
Mar 28, 2007, 06:53 PM
How about 64-bit Vista?

It's not supported according to Apple...

"Support for Windows Vista (32-bit)"

Half Glass
Mar 28, 2007, 07:13 PM
When I first installed on my Mac Pro there was an issue with the hard drive drivers not being correct and having slow transfer speeds.

It used to be that you had to slipstream the XP install disk and there was not a way to go back and add the drivers. I installed before this was found and still have that installation on my MP.

I have not used XP much at all, so has that been fixed? Would I have to reinstall from scratch or would the new drivers and Boot Camp fix that?

Thanks!

--HG

louden
Mar 28, 2007, 07:15 PM
Great news not because it supports vista but that it wont be delayed like it was reported a few days ago. My money is waiting for Leopard :D

To me, releasing an update to Bootcamp means that a Leopard releae is not imminent and they figured they'd better get an update out there so Vista users take advantage of Bootcamp and buy the hardware.

BillyShears
Mar 28, 2007, 07:23 PM
I don't see it

I think it's that it says Leopard is due by Spring 2007, which started last week (I think; and yes, yes, only in the Northern hemisphere).

louden
Mar 28, 2007, 07:25 PM
And by works - I mean all the time, and that it resumes from sleep!

That's one thing I miss....

contractcooker
Mar 28, 2007, 07:37 PM
With my windows xp installation with 1.1.2 skype didn't work. Has anyone used skype with this release? It would be great if that was working I can't wait for until my MBP is indistinguishable from a typical windows machine (only at running windows that is)

Clive At Five
Mar 28, 2007, 07:45 PM
LOL!

Us: 354
DigiTimes: 0

-Clive

Laslo Panaflex
Mar 28, 2007, 07:50 PM
I still can't install vista on my mac pro, I get the same error saying windows can't find a valid drive for installation.

I have my mac boot drive in bay 1, the drive I want vista installed onto in bay 2, and 500GB drives in bay 3 and 4. Does anyone out there have any input or suggestions?

hookedonitunes
Mar 28, 2007, 08:07 PM
Does anyone know how to uninstall 1.12's Macintosh Drivers for Windows XP completely? I know it's not required but I'd like to do it before upgrading. When I click on Remove in Add/Remove Programs, it simply re-installs the drivers instead of uninstalling them.

shigzeo
Mar 28, 2007, 08:15 PM
well this is good news.....now maybe this means that we are one step closer to Leopard!

very good news, it means that progress is indeed being made despite too much criticism now. not shame on the criticism, but apple's big secrecy. they are too much often... bother it all, i cannot wait for it.

dude-x
Mar 28, 2007, 08:17 PM
Digitimes not DigitTimes, I know you probably didn't mean to mistype. :o

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2595

http://digitimes.com/systems/a20070322PD214.html

Someone at Apple got fired for leaking the October bit*. Or DigiTimes is trying to increase ad revenue by making **** up.

*Apple is very secretive and likes to use disinformation to find leaks.

thesnowman16
Mar 28, 2007, 08:36 PM
Someone at Apple got fired for leaking the October bit. Or DigiTimes is trying to increase ad revenue by making **** up.

Personaly I think the whole october thing was total bull. :mad:

AidenShaw
Mar 28, 2007, 08:50 PM
Originally Posted by waynergy
How about 64-bit Vista?

It's not supported according to Apple...

"Support for Windows Vista (32-bit)"

This is pure anti-competitive BS from Apple - Apple just doesn't want to be embarrassed by letting Vista be the first true 64-bit Operating System on MacIntels.

AidenShaw
Mar 28, 2007, 09:03 PM
Recall [that] Windows environments are wildly more varied then your typical Mac OS X environment so...
This argument is nonsense, because the Windows environment is an Apple-built machine.

It is no more or less varied than the OSX environment on the same Mac.

ericthered
Mar 28, 2007, 09:07 PM
This update also seems to have fixed my printer issues.

Thanx apple

Peace
Mar 28, 2007, 09:27 PM
This is pure anti-competitive BS from Apple - Apple just doesn't want to be embarrassed by letting Vista be the first 64-bit Operating System on MacIntels.

Now.Now Aiden.I've used Vista-64 beta on an iMac before..
No big deal..
These Windows drivers can be done fast.

Apple just decided to make these websites predicting a delay of Leopard due to bootcamp look dumb.

Apple succeeded.

digitalbiker
Mar 28, 2007, 09:27 PM
This is pure anti-competitive BS from Apple - Apple just doesn't want to be embarrassed by letting Vista be the first 64-bit Operating System on MacIntels.

Aiden,

Why would Vista 64 bit be any more difficult to support than 32 bit as a second boot option?

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Boot camp just a boot loader?

Can't I install any OS that supports the intel chipset for that machine under Boot Camp?

For example; can't I load Red Hat Enterprise 4 as the second boot option? and can't I use the 64 bit kernel?

I really would like to know as I am hoping to buy a new octo mac pro if and /when it is released, I will need to load Red Hat Enterprise 4 64 bit and Vista 64 bit as alternate boot options for custom software. Won't this work. I don't see why not as long as I am able to come up with the proper drivers.

MonksMac
Mar 28, 2007, 09:44 PM
Windows XP doesn't run too bad on my Mini.

Eidorian
Mar 28, 2007, 09:47 PM
Aiden,

Why would Vista 64 bit be any more difficult to support than 32 bit as a second boot option?

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Boot camp just a boot loader?

Can't I install any OS that supports the intel chipset for that machine under Boot Camp?

For example; can't I load Red Hat Enterprise 4 as the second boot option? and can't I use the 64 bit kernel?

I really would like to know as I am hoping to buy a new octo mac pro if and /when it is released, I will need to load Red Hat Enterprise 4 64 bit and Vista 64 bit as alternate boot options for custom software. Won't this work. I don't see why not as long as I am able to come up with the proper drivers.I believe that 10.4.6 introduced the BIOS emulation to EFI. Boot Camp itself is nothing more then a live drive partitioner and a driver burning disc application. So it's the OS update that's a tad bit more important.

AidenShaw
Mar 28, 2007, 09:51 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Boot camp just a boot loader?
No, it also includes Windows drivers for the Apple hardware. It's a boot loader, plus the run-time driver support for the Apple configuration and options like the "single button" trackpad, Isight, and other differences between an Apple and a real Intel PC. ;)


Why would Vista 64 bit be any more difficult to support than 32 bit as a second boot option?

You have to "check the button" to build 64-drivers as well as 32-bit drivers, and make an installer that knows what to do.

As for the Linuxes, you have to hope that the standard drivers for the various components like video and networking match the way Apple implemented them.

Anonymous Freak
Mar 28, 2007, 09:52 PM
This is pure anti-competitive BS from Apple - Apple just doesn't want to be embarrassed by letting Vista be the first 64-bit Operating System on MacIntels.

Actually, Tiger was the first 64-bit OS on an Intel Mac. With the release of the Mac Pro last year.

Dagless
Mar 28, 2007, 10:04 PM
Had a bit of a scare. Installed the new drivers (for some reason I love updating things...), restarted and the iMac crashed when the XP boot up graphic fades in. Happened twice. Thought "oh... b****cks" and started to worry. Turns out I left the Bootcamp driver CD still in! Don't know if it was that causing it to hang, but I ejected it and it booted fine.

No probs here so far. It's all honkey dory.

digitalbiker
Mar 28, 2007, 10:07 PM
No, it also includes Windows drivers for the Apple hardware. It's a boot loader, plus the run-time driver support for the Apple configuration and options like the "single button" trackpad, Isight, and other differences between an Apple and a real Intel PC. ;)

You have to "check the button" to build 64-drivers as well as 32-bit drivers, and make an installer that knows what to do.

As for the Linuxes, you have to hope that the standard drivers for the various components like video and networking match the way Apple implemented them.

Still sounds pretty trival for Apple to allow 64 bit support.

So now I have another question for the forum.

Does anyone have Red Hat Linux, any flavor, running as a second option under boot camp?

As I understand it, Parallels supports Red Hat through virtualization but does anyone have a current Mac Pro running Red Hat, XP or Vista, and OS X natively under boot camp?

BillyShears
Mar 28, 2007, 10:16 PM
Still sounds pretty trival for Apple to allow 64 bit support.

So now I have another question for the forum.

Does anyone have Red Hat Linux, any flavor, running as a second option under boot camp?

As I understand it, Parallels supports Red Hat through virtualization but does anyone have a current Mac Pro running Red Hat, XP or Vista, and OS X natively under boot camp?

I have heard of that, and Wikipedia confirms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Camp#Other_operating_systems). Not sure about running a second OS X, though.

Eidorian
Mar 28, 2007, 10:21 PM
Ubuntu supports pretty much everything short of the iSight in my iMac. I get support for everything even the Apple Keyboard on my Mac mini.

The partitioner doesn't seem to like my hard drive though. It'll wipe the entire drive just fine but I can never seem to get it to install on the free partition I've created for it.

BillyShears
Mar 28, 2007, 10:26 PM
DigiTimes October Rumour says it will be an "integrated version" (http://digitimes.com/systems/a20070322PD214.html) of Boot Camp.

Apple's Boot Camp website says Leopard will "include" (http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/) Boot Camp.

DigiTimes could be alluding to the (old, kind of wacky) rumour of an integrated virtualization -- something like VMWare or WINE or Parallels. If so, this release doesn't discredit it entirely.

Also, isn't the version numbering odd? Have they released a non-beta version yet? But they keep moving up the version number -- we've had 1.1 beta and 1.2 beta without having a 1.0 beta. Could be they are going to release 2.0 with Leopard, which would have new features? Wild speculation.

AidenShaw
Mar 28, 2007, 11:13 PM
Actually, Tiger was the first 64-bit OS on an Intel Mac. With the release of the Mac Pro last year.

Thanks to Eudorian for pointing out that the "command line 64-bit" support was included on Intel from 10.4.7 or .8.

There is *no* 64-bit support in Intel 10.4. (Where "64-bit support" means application 64-bit virtual addressing, of course.)

Very lame 64-bit for PPC, but *none* for Intel.

Apple's ads scream "64-bit processor", but they don't mention that only 32-bit software is available.

Check the docs (http://www.apple.com/server/documentation/).

akac
Mar 28, 2007, 11:17 PM
I don't see how this affects VM other than simply being more attractive. Considering the price of Parallels, this is a better option, since you get don't have to divvy up the resources for each OS.

All of the boot camp iterations were stop gaps to Leopard. Being the one app in OS X to provide the best of both worlds it requires lots of product testing. So far Bootcamp has been fantastic for me. A finished product will no doubt be simply supoib.

It affects a VM if the VM uses the BootCamp partition to boot up :) So far, it seems to be fine.

Eidorian
Mar 28, 2007, 11:27 PM
There is *no* 64-bit support in Intel 10.4. (Where "64-bit support" means application 64-bit virtual addressing, of course.)

Very lame 64-bit for PPC, but *none* for Intel.

Apple's ads scream "64-bit processor", but they don't mention that only 32-bit software is available.

Check the docs (http://www.apple.com/server/documentation/).Tiger does support 64-bit addressing. It's limited to command line applications though.

akac
Mar 28, 2007, 11:46 PM
DigiTimes October Rumour says it will be an "integrated version" (http://digitimes.com/systems/a20070322PD214.html) of Boot Camp.

Apple's Boot Camp website says Leopard will "include" (http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/) Boot Camp.

DigiTimes could be alluding to the (old, kind of wacky) rumour of an integrated virtualization -- something like VMWare or WINE or Parallels. If so, this release doesn't discredit it entirely.

Also, isn't the version numbering odd? Have they released a non-beta version yet? But they keep moving up the version number -- we've had 1.1 beta and 1.2 beta without having a 1.0 beta. Could be they are going to release 2.0 with Leopard, which would have new features? Wild speculation.

DigiTimes has NEVER been right about anything. So not only can you ignore anything they have to say but you can go the complete opposite of what they say and probably be closer to the truth. Apple won't do WINE and I doubt they'll touch virtualization for awhile.

aafuss1
Mar 29, 2007, 12:39 AM
I find it funny that Apple Remote supports a rival to iTunes-Windows Media Player in XP or Vista.

justflie
Mar 29, 2007, 12:50 AM
I find it funny that Apple Remote supports a rival to iTunes-Windows Media Player in XP or Vista.

Of course not. Apple wouldn't want to be sued for monopolistic practices like a certain other company. Not that the remote use would be the final nail in the coffin by any means, but it would go in the case against them. Does anyone actually use Media Player to organize their media anyways? Everyone I know uses Winamp or iTunes in windows.

TigerPRO
Mar 29, 2007, 01:20 AM
whoaa, is today October? :p :rolleyes:

Your right, and that story was totally rediculous wasn't it.

Supa_Fly
Mar 29, 2007, 01:30 AM
But I'll be keeping Vi$ta well away from my nice shiny MBP when I get it. I've just spent the last two days (and I ain't done yet) setting up a Vista laptop for a relative and I now feel physically sick as a direct result. :(

SL

Dude I feel your pain.

toysblack
Mar 29, 2007, 01:46 AM
Hi,
I just installed the new drivers from bootcamp 1.2 b on XP 32-bit
I thought that the Chipset drivers or something will help to recognize the whole RAM on our Macpros ( 4GB) but it doesn't...
Does somebody know a way to do that ? We have huge 3D scenes to render, and 2 more GB will be useful !

Florian.

Voltes V
Mar 29, 2007, 02:26 AM
with the new bootcamp update, my bluetooth keyboard is now not working, i keep adding it but nothing happens. :eek: :eek: :eek: :mad: :mad: :mad:

it works ok from the previous version, ill just have to turn off and turn back On apple bt keyboard and after a few seconds, kb starts working.

JloR
Mar 29, 2007, 03:55 AM
Hmm, posting from Vista Business using bootcamp 1.2.

Their site says right-click is as easy as holding down the right options key and using the trackpad.. Well.. That's not true for my Macbook.

Have anyone else had this problem?

Airforce
Mar 29, 2007, 04:33 AM
Hmm, posting from Vista Business using bootcamp 1.2.

Their site says right-click is as easy as holding down the right options key and using the trackpad.. Well.. That's not true for my Macbook.

Have anyone else had this problem?

2 fingers on trackpad + click = right click

louden
Mar 29, 2007, 04:41 AM
2 fingers on trackpad + click = right click

works for me.

Althought I don't think the two finger scrolling is as smooth as it could be. It doesn't seem to have the same feel as it does in the macos environment.

reflex
Mar 29, 2007, 05:00 AM
As I run Vista on my MBP, I was really excited about this update. So of course I immediately downloaded it and started to install the drivers. However, the installer froze Vista while installing the Atheros wireless drivers.

Of course I didn't like that, but at least no permanent damage was done. I proceeded to install some other drivers, like Bluetooth and iSight.

After a while I decided to try the complete install again, and this time it worked. Go figure.

Somehow it feels like a better laptop now :) And I'm no longer afraid to put it to sleep in Vista by just closing the lid.

simontarr
Mar 29, 2007, 05:56 AM
hehe...it's funny reading Apple's snipes at Windows down the right hand side- 'last century BIOS & it’ll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world"

Shame I can't install any kind of windows on my mac....when I go to install I just get a black screen with lots of optical drive activity, but not much else. Ho hum.

hugeipod
Mar 29, 2007, 06:01 AM
Why can't I run 64bit Vista on my 64bit Mac?

reflex
Mar 29, 2007, 06:15 AM
Why can't I run 64bit Vista on my 64bit Mac?

Not that I've tried, but you can run 64bit Vista on your mac. However, Apple don't provide drivers for it, so you'll have to look around to find them.

AidenShaw
Mar 29, 2007, 06:59 AM
Tiger does support 64-bit addressing. It's limited to command line applications though.

http://images.apple.com/macosx/features/64bit/images/indextop20050412.jpg http://images.apple.com/macosx/features/64bit/images/indextitle20050412.gif

Yes, on a G5. On a Core 2 or Xeon, no.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/64bit/

Tiger also provides access to as much physical memory as you can install in PowerMac G5 and Xserve G5 systems, as well as highly optimized 64-bit math support for all PowerPC G5 systems. Even 32-bit applications benefit from the system’s ability to access large amounts of RAM: The system can manipulate data in multiple applications entirely in RAM for maximum performance.


Do the Math
Both 64-bit and 32-bit applications in Tiger can use hardware-accelerated math functions when running on a Power Mac G5.

celebi23
Mar 29, 2007, 07:18 AM
Almost makes me want to reinstall Vista


ALMOST

frankfurter
Mar 29, 2007, 07:45 AM
Got into a stink last night, I couldn't get the bluetooth keyboard to work at all. Fortunately had a USB keyboard, but I couldn't even reboot into OSX. Bug?

1) Wiped my XP partition out
2) Reinstalled a 32GB partition
3) Installed Vista
4) Installed BootCamp drivers
5) Last thing I heard was the plunk of a device being uninstalled, and that's all she wrote...... It was stuck on the 'Finish' button of the BootCamp driver disk install dialog.....

mdelaney123
Mar 29, 2007, 08:08 AM
http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

* Updated drivers, including but not limited to trackpad, AppleTime (synch),

Can anyone confirm that the time now remains accurate in both Windows and OSX?

CJM
Mar 29, 2007, 08:26 AM
Don't go anywhere near it. Seriously. You think Vista 32-bit has software compatibility issues. Its nothing compared to the 64-bit version.

Yeah... Now you tell me...

I wonder if I'll be able to convince my boss to buy another copy of Vista Ultimate...

reflex
Mar 29, 2007, 08:27 AM
Can anyone confirm that the time now remains accurate in both Windows and OSX?

Seems to work here, anyway.

godrifle
Mar 29, 2007, 08:48 AM
Anyone having success with Vista with Aero on a Mini with these new drivers? I'm lazy and don't want to wipe XP unless I'm pretty sure it'll work...

lukeisme09
Mar 29, 2007, 08:53 AM
i dont know anybody who would actually want vista on there computer.... it is problems waiting to ahppent, trust me i have been through with it.:apple:

Eidorian
Mar 29, 2007, 09:03 AM
http://images.apple.com/macosx/features/64bit/images/indextop20050412.jpg http://images.apple.com/macosx/features/64bit/images/indextitle20050412.gif

Yes, on a G5. On a Core 2 or Xeon, no.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/64bit/

Tiger also provides access to as much physical memory as you can install in PowerMac G5 and Xserve G5 systems, as well as highly optimized 64-bit math support for all PowerPC G5 systems. Even 32-bit applications benefit from the system’s ability to access large amounts of RAM: The system can manipulate data in multiple applications entirely in RAM for maximum performance.


Do the Math
Both 64-bit and 32-bit applications in Tiger can use hardware-accelerated math functions when running on a Power Mac G5. I do remember a mention of additional 64-bit optimizations to Tiger when the MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo was released. I special build number was assigned to it as well. :rolleyes:

AidenShaw
Mar 29, 2007, 09:17 AM
I do remember a mention of additional 64-bit optimizations to Tiger when the MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo was released. I special build number was assigned to it as well. :rolleyes:

It would be nice to have a link to support that - if I'm wrong I would like to be corrected.

BTW, I notice that Mathematic supports 64-bit in Vista and XP, and 64-bit in OSX on a G5, but only 32-bit on a MacIntel. The Mac Pro has been out a lot longer than Vista, so it's surprising that there's no MacIntel 64-bit version if it is in fact supported.... http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica/platforms/

Does the current version of Xcode have a "build for x64" option for the universal binary?

mygoldens
Mar 29, 2007, 09:31 AM
I am sorry for the Mac world, I have sold my Macbook Pro 17 in favor of a tablet. I have been waiting for a Mac tablet for 2-3 years, I wait no longer. Now, they have Vista drivers, which is good, but I am already running Vista on my Fujitsu t4215, with tablet functions, that work great.

I do believe Apple is on the way out of the PC business. In a few years Macbooks will be a fond memory.

Do not get me wrong, I am a firm believer in Mac OS and Apple computers, I still have an Imac, but let's get real Apple. I need work tools and a tablet is necessary for my work.

I will miss using Mac OS X on a daily basis, but it was more than critical to have a tablet for me.

SeanMcg
Mar 29, 2007, 10:21 AM
I am sorry for the Mac world, I have sold my Macbook Pro 17 in favor of a tablet. I have been waiting for a Mac tablet for 2-3 years, I wait no longer. Now, they have Vista drivers, which is good, but I am already running Vista on my Fujitsu t4215, with tablet functions, that work great.

I do believe Apple is on the way out of the PC business. In a few years Macbooks will be a fond memory.

Do not get me wrong, I am a firm believer in Mac OS and Apple computers, I still have an Imac, but let's get real Apple. I need work tools and a tablet is necessary for my work.

I will miss using Mac OS X on a daily basis, but it was more than critical to have a tablet for me.
The ModBook (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/ModBook). Granted, it's only a 13.3 inch screen, but it is still a tablet. At a premium, I know, but still a tablet. I wonder how sales are...

Eidorian
Mar 29, 2007, 10:32 AM
It would be nice to have a link to support that - if I'm wrong I would like to be corrected.

BTW, I notice that Mathematic supports 64-bit in Vista and XP, and 64-bit in OSX on a G5, but only 32-bit on a MacIntel. The Mac Pro has been out a lot longer than Vista, so it's surprising that there's no MacIntel 64-bit version if it is in fact supported.... http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica/platforms/

Does the current version of Xcode have a "build for x64" option for the universal binary?It took me about over an hour to find an answer to your challenge of the credibility of my statement. (I did find several of your posts denying 64-bit support on OS X Intel though.)

1. I do remember a special build of 10.4.7/10.4.8 for the MacBook Pro that provided additional 64-bit optimizations for the Core 2 Duo processor. After much Google and MacRumors searching I was unable to find that mention.

2. XCode 2.4 (http://www.google.com/search?q=xcode+2.4+64+bit&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)does support the ability to build and debug 64-bit applications on Intel.

Mac OS X

Apple Computer has indicated that Mac OS X 10.5 will support 64-bit applications on its 64-bit x86-based machines as well as on 64-bit PowerPC machines.[5] Mac OS X 10.4.7 and higher support 64-bit command-line tools when run on 64-bit x86-based machines, just as version 10.4 and higher support them on 64-bit PowerPC machines.[6]

http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/DeveloperTools/CompilerTools.html (Not working)

It looks like 10.4.7 is the turning point here. 10.4.8 (8N1037, 8N1051, 8N1430) were what shipped with the original MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo.

The Mac Pro shipped with 10.4.7 originally and later 10.4.8 (K1079, 8N1430).

mygoldens
Mar 29, 2007, 10:41 AM
The ModBook (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/ModBook). Granted, it's only a 13.3 inch screen, but it is still a tablet. At a premium, I know, but still a tablet. I wonder how sales are...

Well, they are not shipping until 4/30/07 and it is 6lbs (I checked), the Fuji is 3.5lbs without the CD in. I wish they had one, if they do come out with one, I will be first to check it out.

AidenShaw
Mar 29, 2007, 10:58 AM
It looks like 10.4.7 is the turning point here. 10.4.8 (8N1037, 8N1051, 8N1430) were what shipped with the original MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo.

The Mac Pro shipped with 10.4.7 originally and later 10.4.8 (K1079, 8N1430).
Thank you for making me aware of the change.

chrisflew
Mar 29, 2007, 11:47 AM
.

miker51
Mar 29, 2007, 12:21 PM
When I first installed on my Mac Pro there was an issue with the hard drive drivers not being correct and having slow transfer speeds.

It used to be that you had to slipstream the XP install disk and there was not a way to go back and add the drivers. I installed before this was found and still have that installation on my MP.--HG

That was fixed with a firmware update some time back (I don't have the firmware version # here, I am at work). You should have gotten the update automatically via software update.

Eidorian
Mar 29, 2007, 12:32 PM
Thank you for making me aware of the change.I'm glad to be helpful.

AidenShaw
Mar 29, 2007, 12:49 PM
I'm glad to be helpful.

http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/09/32-bit-vs-64-bit-performance

Here's an interesting bit - Geekbench tests of 32 vs 64 bit on PPC and Intel.

64-bit 5% to 7% faster in Intel
64-bit 10% slower on PPC G5

Some useful info in the discussion section as well.

Eidorian
Mar 29, 2007, 12:50 PM
http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/09/32-bit-vs-64-bit-performance

Here's an interesting bit - Geekbench tests of 32 vs 64 bit on PPC and Intel.

64-bit 5% to 7% faster in Intel
64-bit 10% slower on PPC G5

Some useful info in the discussion section as well.I was going to post the 32/64-bit Geekbech results in my original response. :rolleyes:

Cromulent
Mar 29, 2007, 01:05 PM
It looks like we don't get any video card drivers. I still show the original ones from March 2006.

You should download the latest drivers from the ATI (or Nvidia if that is the card you have) website, not stick to the ones Apple provide.

Eidorian
Mar 29, 2007, 01:06 PM
You should download the latest drivers from the ATI (or Nvidia if that is the card you have) website, not stick to the ones Apple provide.*coughs* Mobility X1600 */cough*

joncelli
Mar 29, 2007, 01:25 PM
Oh damn, just sprang for Parallels because it supported Vista and I didn't have a full copy of XP to use with Boot Camp. I wonder if there's any advantage to having Parallels and Boot Camp [rubs chin]...

Eidorian
Mar 29, 2007, 01:26 PM
Oh damn, just sprang for Parallels because it supported Vista and I didn't have a full copy of XP to use with Boot Camp. I wonder if there's any advantage to having Parallels and Boot Camp [rubs chin]...Less rebooting and full system hardware resource support as well.

dude-x
Mar 29, 2007, 01:34 PM
Interesting benchmarks on 32-bit vs. 64-bit performance. Thanks for the link.

popz41
Mar 29, 2007, 01:46 PM
anyone else getting a blue screen of death halfway through the driver install?

Im just doing the driver update and about halfway through BAM.

:(

joncelli
Mar 29, 2007, 02:02 PM
Nice! Between this and Parallels being able to use the Bootcamp partition, I'm in heaven :)

Ohhh, it can? I'm a serious Mac newbie and I'm still wrapping my head around how Parallels is used. How does this work?

SeanMcg
Mar 29, 2007, 02:15 PM
Ohhh, it can? I'm a serious Mac newbie and I'm still wrapping my head around how Parallels is used. How does this work?

http://www.parallels.com/files/upload/parallels_final_lowrez060927.pdf

cgc
Mar 29, 2007, 02:21 PM
Hi,
I just installed the new drivers from bootcamp 1.2 b on XP 32-bit
I thought that the Chipset drivers or something will help to recognize the whole RAM on our Macpros ( 4GB) but it doesn't...
Does somebody know a way to do that ? We have huge 3D scenes to render, and 2 more GB will be useful !

Florian.

XP doesn't recognize more than 2GB...

AidenShaw
Mar 29, 2007, 02:35 PM
XP doesn't recognize more than 2GB...

Perhaps true on a MacIntel, but not true on a real PC.

XP can recognize 4 GiB minus whatever address space is reserved by the system for I/O space, VRAM mapping and other system needs.

C:\> psinfo \\localhost

PsInfo v1.74 - Local and remote system information viewer
Copyright (C) 2001-2005 Mark Russinovich
Sysinternals - www.sysinternals.com

System information for \\localhost:
Uptime: 15 days 19 hours 22 minutes 19 seconds
Kernel version: Microsoft Windows XP, Multiprocessor Free
Product type: Professional
Product version: 5.1
Service pack: 2
Kernel build number: 2600
Registered organization:
Registered owner:
Install date: 2003-05-14, 14:33:46
Activation status: Activated
IE version: 7.0000
System root: C:\WinXP
Processors: 2
Processor speed: 3.0 GHz
Processor type: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU
Physical memory: 3584 MB
Video driver: NVIDIA Quadro4 900 XGL

joncelli
Mar 29, 2007, 02:36 PM
http://www.parallels.com/files/upload/parallels_final_lowrez060927.pdf

Okay, thanks for the link. That's very helpful.

ShannonHoon
Mar 29, 2007, 03:45 PM
Does External Video with MacBook Pros or iMacs work now with Bootcamp 1.2?

waremaster
Mar 29, 2007, 07:29 PM
I ran into an issue with bootcamp 1.2 if anyone has a solution please share.

I had XP installed and working fine with the bluetooth keyboard and mouse on my Mac Pro. But now with bootcamp 1.2 I can't hold the option key to select which OS to boot. Also since 1.2 I can no longer select the startup disk in windows and choose Macintosh HD because no matter what I do it boots to XP but if I plug in a usb keyboard I am able to select the OS and boot into OSX and at that point I can select Macintosh HD as my startup disk. And that works fine. But my main issue is without the use of the option key on my bluetooth reliably I am forced to ditch that keyboard since I can't select the startup disk in windows. I did try repairing the permissions on the Macintosh HD and that made no difference as far as the startup disk selection in windows.

Does anyone have any ideas?

cgc
Mar 29, 2007, 07:30 PM
When I first installed on my Mac Pro there was an issue with the hard drive drivers not being correct and having slow transfer speeds.

...

I have not used XP much at all, so has that been fixed? Would I have to reinstall from scratch or would the new drivers and Boot Camp fix that?


Yeah, Apple's EFI firmware update (http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/macproefifirmwareupdate11.html) fixed that several months ago.

Cult Follower
Mar 29, 2007, 09:31 PM
How bout we skip the updates and get on with Leopard?:p

drylight
Mar 29, 2007, 09:52 PM
Software Update for Windows is not new. It's been out for a while now. New for Vista maybe. But not for Windows XP.

JackSYi
Mar 30, 2007, 04:56 AM
How bout we skip the updates and get on with Leopard?:p

I second. :apple:

MacIllini
Mar 30, 2007, 11:10 AM
Blue screen of death!!!!!!!!!! :eek:

Is there a way to "restore" back to a prior date like on a traditional Windows XP system? :confused:

Inserted the "updated" Mac Drivers CD and midway into the upgrade... POOF! $%&!# BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH :mad:

Pmsharp
Mar 30, 2007, 04:29 PM
does this mean that i need to re-install windows to get it to update?

psychofreak
Mar 30, 2007, 04:43 PM
does this mean that i need to re-install windows to get it to update?

No...

Anonymous Freak
Mar 30, 2007, 05:00 PM
Perhaps true on a MacIntel, but not true on a real PC.

XP can recognize 4 GiB minus whatever address space is reserved by the system for I/O space, VRAM mapping and other system needs.


XP Professional can 'recognize' up to 4 GB of RAM, and the server editions can recognize up to 64 GB, thanks to an extension to the 32-bit Intel Architecture called 'Physical Address Extension' (PAE) that gives the 32-bit IA32 (x86) architecture a 36-bit memory space. But, execution is still limited to 4 GB per program.

As for how it works with 4 GB (or, indeed, any amount above 2 GB,) it is odd. Regardless of how much physical RAM you have, as long as you have virtual memory turned on, Windows will allocate up to 4 GB of RAM to each program. Of this, a dedicated 2 GB is given to the program, and 2 GB is 'shared' kernel memory. (i.e. the Windows kernel uses up to 2 GB, and this same 2 GB is shared among all programs, for executing kernel-level processes.) This means each given 32-bit program on 32-bit Windows really only gets 2 GB of RAM to use, regardless of how much memory is actually in the system. You can hack Windows to allow up to 3 GB per program, which reduces the 'shared kernel' memory to 1 GB. (On a workstation, this can be a major help if you use memory-intensive programs, but on a server, especially a terminal server, this is a BAD thing.)

64-bit Windows, of course, allows full access to all 64-bit programs.

AidenShaw
Mar 30, 2007, 11:30 PM
As for how it works with 4 GB (or, indeed, any amount above 2 GB,) it is odd.
Actually, it can be "odd" even if you have less than 2 GiB of RAM - since the "oddity" is how virtual memory is laid out.

Regardless of how much physical RAM you have, as long as you have virtual memory turned on
I didn't think that it was conceivable to run NT with virtual memory turned off. Is this a brain fart from OS9 days?


Windows will allocate up to 4 GB of RAM to each program. Of this, a dedicated 2 GB is given to the program, and 2 GB is 'shared' kernel memory. (i.e. the Windows kernel uses up to 2 GB, and this same 2 GB is shared among all programs, for executing kernel-level processes.)

No, No, No.

*Every* process gets 4 GiB of virtual memory - 2 GiB to the private area and 2 GiB to shared system memory.

Not RAM, but virtual addresses potentially mapped to RAM. Very big difference - even if you have a system with 256 MiB of RAM - you still have the potential of a 2 GiB user space.

This means each given 32-bit program on 32-bit Windows really only gets 2 GB of RAM to use, regardless of how much memory is actually in the system.

Each 32-bit process gets 2 GiB of virtual memory to use, regardless of how much physical memory is actually in the system.

You can hack Windows to allow up to 3 GB per program, which reduces the 'shared kernel' memory to 1 GB.
This is not a "hack" - there's a documented and supported boot qualifier to change the process/system region from 2Gib/2Gib to 3Gib/1GiB. In "boot.ini", add the qualifier "/3GB" to the boot command line.

Note that this won't really change anything unless a program is compiled with the option "I understand what /3GB means and want to run with the extended user virtual address space".

I use this often when running SQL Server on a 32-bit system - it lets SQL Server use an extra gig of cache.

Other server apps with a single memory-intensive process would similarly benefit - but servers running many smaller apps would see little or no benefit.

64-bit Windows, of course, allows full access to all 64-bit programs.

Finally, something that I have no argument with.... ;)

Anonymous Freak
Mar 31, 2007, 04:07 AM
Each 32-bit process gets 2 GiB of virtual memory to use, regardless of how much physical memory is actually in the system.

You are correct. Sorry, I was lazy in my post, and forgot to add 'virtual' to most every mention of 'RAM'. I did mean it that way, but, of course, that's not what I wrote. :-p

Anonymous Freak
Mar 31, 2007, 04:15 AM
I didn't think that it was conceivable to run NT with virtual memory turned off. Is this a brain fart from OS9 days?

Nope, NT and its derivatives can all have VM disabled.

If you know for a fact that you will not be running any/enough programs that will make you run out of physical memory, it can speed up Windows a decent amount to disable VM. In XP, it's under System Properties -> Advanced -> Performance Settings -> Advanced -> Change -> 'No Paging File' -> Set -> OK, then reboot.

I generally do this on HD-space-limited computers, computers with painfully slow hard drives, and virtual machines (obviously only when I know there is sufficient physical RAM present for my needs; as what would normally be a request to enlarge the page file likely becomes a system crash with VM off.) Any 'Live' Windows CD also has to, by its nature, have VM off. (Norton "Symantec Recovery Disc"s, for example. These also insist on having a certain minimum of physical RAM to make sure they don't run out.)

AidenShaw
Mar 31, 2007, 11:28 AM
Nope, NT and its derivatives can all have VM disabled.

... In XP, it's under System Properties -> Advanced -> Performance Settings -> Advanced -> Change -> 'No Paging File' -> Set -> OK, then reboot.

Disabling the backing store for virtual memory is not the same as disabling virtual memory. You are disabling paging of virtual memory, not virtual memory.

Disabling paging just means that the amount of virtual memory in use cannot grow beyond the number of physical pages. (It may appear that more is in use than physical memory, but that's because some shared pages are counted more than once.)

"Virtual memory" fundamentally means that the memory address seen by a program for an object is not the same as the actual physical memory address. Two programs can read an integer at address 0x0056EFAC and get different results - because the two programs have different physical addresses for the same virtual address. Memory protection (something that classic Mac OS lacked) is part of virtual memory - programs cannot corrupt each others' memory because they do not share physical addresses, even though they are using the same virtual addresses.

Virtual memory also has the big advantage that contiguous virtual memory does not need to be contiguous in physical memory. A large request for contiguous virtual memory can be created by using a lot of fragmented physical pages. No need to restart to clean up free memory so that a program can be loaded.

Most of these features of virtual memory are required for NT to run. It is not necessary to have a pagefile so that memory in use can exceed the actual physical RAM - but disabling the pagefile has no effect on the other features of virtual memory. Someone with a classic Mac OS mindset might call this "disabling virtual memory", but that is quite incorrect.

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory for a much more thorough explanation)


(obviously only when I know there is sufficient physical RAM present for my needs; as what would normally be a request to enlarge the page file likely becomes a system crash with VM off.)

Whatever little bit of speed you might gain will quickly be offset by a system or application crash caused by running out of memory.

Most experts advise to not remove the pagefile (see If I have a Windows XP machine that has lots of memory, can I improve performance by removing the pagefile? (http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/42035/42035.html)).

In my experience, on memory rich machines I declare the pagefile to have an initial size of 16 MiB, and let it grow to several GiB. Windows will usually reclaim pages from cache rather than expanding the pagefile. In any event, I never need to worry about a failure because I didn't make the right guess about memory usage.

Jookbox
Mar 31, 2007, 04:48 PM
this is pretty cool! i'm getting a macbook pro in the coming months and i will buy vista to dual boot...

with that said, my primary windows system still has xp. i have a free upgrade from dell sitting on my bookshelf, i installed and ended up putting xp back 3 days later. it's still not ready to use in a web dev environment, but it's just fine as an os to browse, check email, etc.

AidenShaw
Apr 2, 2007, 12:17 PM
It's still not ready to use in a web dev environment, but it's just fine as an os to browse, check email, etc.

What problems did you have with Vista that make it "not ready" for you?

Erasmus®
Apr 5, 2007, 09:49 AM
Hi guys, since they update boot camp I decided to uninstall the previous one, and go for the new one. I burned down the cd and all the rest. After formatting, the laptop said there was an error with a file - it couldn't be moved, so I was forced to reboot and boot from cd. After I did so, I could normally install windows from the cd and all seems to work fine so far, apple remote included. Anyone had the same trouble?

Steve Jobless
Apr 10, 2007, 03:46 PM
am i the only person who gets a blue screen during installation? right after the trackpad installs i get the blue screen.

also does this allow us to use the brightness and sound keys in vista? so far i cant get it to work.

thanks

Erasmus®
Apr 11, 2007, 03:52 AM
hi guys, I was wondering if anyone tried to install windows vista on boot camp from an upgrade vista disk, on of those that come with the microsoft action pack? they say "ms windows vista business". Thanks for the help!

TBi
Apr 11, 2007, 04:43 AM
am i the only person who gets a blue screen during installation? right after the trackpad installs i get the blue screen.

also does this allow us to use the brightness and sound keys in vista? so far i cant get it to work.

thanks

Hold FN while you press the keys.

Stiney
Apr 11, 2007, 01:36 PM
Sorry if this topic has been covered already, but I didn't notice it.

So I installed the BC1.2 drivers last night and everything went fine. I then restarted and once windows loads up I get the Blue Screen of death and my computer restarts its self. I am really confused....

I had to load windows in safe mode and set the OS back to a prior version of windows before I had loaded the drivers.

Anybody else have this issue? Are their any fixes?

Thanks

MBP 2.16 CD/2G of ram/Dell wireless 1500 802.11n card/and a partridge in a peartree