Apple: Official Boot Camp Support for Windows 7 Coming Later This Year

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/22/apple-official-boot-camp-support-for-windows-7-coming-later-this-year/)

With the release of Windows 7 today, Apple has posted a new support article (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3920) announcing that official support for running Windows 7 on Macs using Apple's Boot Camp solution will be coming later this year.Apple will support Microsoft Windows 7 (Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate) with Boot Camp in Mac OS X Snow Leopard before the end of the year. This support will require a software update to Boot Camp.The document also notes that a number of early Intel-based Macintosh computers will not support Windows 7 running in Boot Camp. Note: The following models will not be supported for use with Windows 7 using Boot Camp.

- iMac (17-inch, Early 2006)
- iMac (17-inch, Late 2006)
- iMac (20-inch, Early 2006)
- iMac (20-inch, Late 2006)
- MacBook Pro (15-inch, Early 2006)
- MacBook Pro (17-inch, Late 2006)
- MacBook Pro (15-inch, Late 2006)
- MacBook Pro (17-inch, Early 2006)
- Mac Pro (Mid 2006, Intel Xeon Dual-core 2.66GHz or 3GHz)While Boot Camp (http://www.apple.com/support/bootcamp/) currently officially supports only Windows XP and Vista, many users have had success installing and running Windows 7 (http://www.simplehelp.net/2009/01/15/using-boot-camp-to-install-windows-7-on-your-mac-the-complete-walkthrough/) already, but official support from Apple should streamline the process and provide consumers with resources to assist them with setup and use.

Many users also prefer to run Windows virtually rather than turning to the Boot Camp dual-boot solution. Parallels Desktop 4.0 for Mac already includes support for 32-bit Windows 7, and VMware Fusion 3, scheduled (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/06/vmware-fusion-3-to-launch-october-27th/) to launch next week, will offer full 32-bit and 64-bit Windows 7 support for virtualization under Mac OS X.

Article Link: Apple: Official Boot Camp Support for Windows 7 Coming Later This Year (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/22/apple-official-boot-camp-support-for-windows-7-coming-later-this-year/)

[NeverhadaPC]

Does bootcamp support 64-bit W7? :confused: or only 32-bit?

[CptnJustc]

Erp... guess I should have made sure before ordering it for my old MBP-15. Anybody have any experience putting it on the old Core Duo laptops?

[whooleytoo]

Booooh. My MBP is on that list.

Admittedly, I use Parallels more than Boot Camp; and haven't upgraded to 4.0 anyhow; but still, it's never nice having someone disrespectin' your Mac like this. :)

[Vol7ron]

I have been using the Windows 7 Ultimate RTM since August running on my June 2009 17in Macbook Pro without any issues. And i am using the 64bit version as well. Runs great. Of course, i only use it to play games that don't run well in Mac. Still think that OS X is better

[rdowty]

You'd think a touchpad driver wouldn't kill them and its not like nobody heard of Windows 7 until today. I guess I'll stick with Vista. I'd be happier with XP except I need IIS7 for development.

[hiimamac]

Does bootcamp support 64-bit W7? :confused: or only 32-bit?

Yes. If you get tge 64 bit version.
Speaking if msft, with no advertising according to the news, they just showed the first ever msft store grand opening today. Ummmmm, as a 90-99% mac user and without MS Courier.

The store was packed. Standing room only and had like 700 people the night before trying to get in. Wow.

[iSee]

They're making me feel bad about my Mac:

Note: The following models will not be supported for use with Windows 7 using Boot Camp.
...
- MacBook Pro (15-inch, Early 2006)
...


Until now I thought it was still a pretty good machine.

[lender30]

Have MBP 13". Using Boot Camp to run Win7 @ 64 bit. Works fine.

[Roessnakhan]

Have MBP 13". Using Boot Camp to run Win7 @ 64 bit. Works fine.

Ditto. Had a hiccup with the first install that kept crashing, but all is well now.

[Fastshutter]

They're making me feel bad about my Mac:



Until now I thought it was still a pretty good machine.

Don't worry, Apple will find many more ways to artificially diminish the value of your Mac over time.

[johnmcboston]

It's times like this I wish the imac would have a model number or something. I have no idea when I bought mine - and going by 'release date' isn't the most helpful way to identify products...

flame off :-)

[darwinian]

So ... why are they not being supported officially?

[mbprouser]

The key word here is "supported". Doesn't mean you still can't run Windows 7 on those machines, it just means if you have problems with the drivers, Apple won't offer support on it.

[Vol7ron]

Correct, the only minor issue i have is with the touchpad. Aside from that, it runs flawlessly. However it will be nice once the driver is out for the touchpad. It is annoying when i need to scroll and it jumps all over the place.

[ingenious]

So is there any technical reasoning behind this decision?

[funkyp56]

I think they are dropping support due to lack of true 64-bit on those models. meaning they have the cpus for it but not the logic boards needed. thats why you cant hit 4gb of RAM.

However. I am running Windows 7 32 on two of the Late 2006 models, drivers off the SL Disk worked fine, system runs great.

[acurafan]

It's times like this I wish the imac would have a model number or something. ...
they do...

:apple: > About this mac > more info... > hardware > model identifier

[Cromulent]

I haven't used Boot Camp in years. So the fact that my machine is unsupported seems to make little difference.

[BongoBanger]

Hmm...

No Leopard support? Oh well. I better get round to buying a copy of SL - they should have fixed the worst of the bugs by 10.6.2.

[christall109]

They're making me feel bad about my Mac:



Until now I thought it was still a pretty good machine.

Me too.....

This is Apple signalling, "Get your credit cards ready!"

I had the beta installed on mine and it ran fine. I don't see why it won't this time around with the 32bit version.

[dvince2]

I've been using the x64 Pro version on my early 2009 MP, and the x86 version on my early 2008 macbook.

On the Mac Pro, Windows 7 had drivers for everything already except for special Apple Only things, like the eject key on the keyboard.

[hiimamac]

Booooh. My MBP is on that list.

Admittedly, I use Parallels more than Boot Camp; and haven't upgraded to 4.0 anyhow; but still, it's never nice having someone disrespectin' your Mac like this. :)

I like fusion myself but since I have a mbp and 24" HDMI CABLE/Satilite ready. I use Fusion most of the time but if I were doing audio on a newer iMac, I would use bootcamp or my PC rig attached to mbp via a kvr switch.

I think my next move might be a 8 core hackntosh since there are benchmarks that run circles around the pro with the exception of rendering and it's not that bad considering now you can run all mac updates without new hacks, boot to Win 7. Ubuntu or OSX, and save $2000 and have a system with any GPU and as much Ram as your motherboard support. Google osx86. SAid this was going to happen all the way back when Apple was still PPC and needed liquid cooled. Now a low end MacBook is faster. Dope man, far out cool. But I like the new hack script that once installed, you can use d/l any updates.
I think Apple let's thi go on as I've read 25% oe more of hack users ended up getting a mac. Plus it allows Apple to monitor which 3rd party hardware works with little or no problems. My prediction is thY someday OSX will license the OS to some OEMs. And rememeber, everyone told me "no way Apple gies to Intel" and, well, they were wrong. Just a matter if time unless Apple releass 4-8 core mid range headless with choice if any GPU and non server, non ECC memory. I think happens if msft tkes off and or the Courier turns out ti be true.

Peace all.

[jaw04005]

Wonder why my MacBook (Late 2006) is supported? That's weird.

[Fuchal]

Lazy. Apple should have had this today, on day one.

Kind of annoying especially considering my 13" Macbook Pro's audio + webcam don't work properly in ANY Windows at the moment (XP, Vista, or 7) without hacked drivers.

[Yvan256]

No mention of the Mac mini... does it mean the Core Solo with GMA950 Mac mini is supported but not better-spec'ed iMacs? :confused:

[atari1356]

I think they are dropping support due to lack of true 64-bit on those models. meaning they have the cpus for it but not the logic boards needed. thats why you cant hit 4gb of RAM.

However. I am running Windows 7 32 on two of the Late 2006 models, drivers off the SL Disk worked fine, system runs great.

Yeah, it might not be supported... but in some cases you may still be able to get it to work.

I used to have the Windows 7 Beta, and then the Windows 7 RC installed on my 15" MacBook Pro (late 2006 model). Although, I did have to fix some driver issues.

[shaolindave]

The first time I installed vista64 on my iMac, worked fine. I formatted that partition later and couldn't reinstall it because "boot camp only supports the 32-bit version".. I have no idea what I did to get it to work the first time. It just, did.
I'm wondering if the 64-bit version of windows 7 will work for boot camp. It's stupid that the older 64-bit windows's won't.
Then again, all I use windows for nowadays is left 4 dead, so XP will do it for now.

[phatcat]

64 bit works well on my rev C air and my 08 macbook pro. touchpad scrolling is over sensitive. Also you can't run the setup.exe file, however if you go to the Apple folder and click on the 64 bit MSI file it works. you'll have to right click on it and open it in troubleshoot compatibility mode.

[martynmc7]

they do...

:apple: > About this mac > more info... > hardware > model identifier

Doh!

I think the poster was referring to the fact that a serial number isn't provided in the 'unsupported list,' therefore I assume they know their serial number, just not the date when the machine was purchased.

I'm pretty sure Apple will have provided serial numbers of unsupported machines, or at least model identifiers.

[Eidorian]

Windows 7 RC runs just fine on my iMac Core Duo. No good can come from Apple doing this. :rolleyes:

[SirOmega]

Wonder why my MacBook (Late 2006) is supported? That's weird.

Yeah, I have a mid 2006 MacBook and its not on the unsupported list. Maybe whatever drivers are needed for it will work? Who knows.

[daddywags214]

Dang, my Mac Pro is a gen 1. Oh well; WinXP still plays the games I have anyway.

[SHankara]

For those worrying about their comp not being supported,you DO NOT NEED BOOT CAMP TO INSTALL ANY VERSION OF WINDOWS.

[madog]

It might just be Apple being lazy and not wanting to develop/release drivers for the excluded models. Phsycically, there shouldn't be a reason why it wouldn't work at all.

I would imagine that if it is possible to run Windows 7 on those machines, someone has already done it (since it isn't supported anyway right now). The smooth Apple method might not be supported, but like I said there shouldn't be anything physically stopping you from getting it on there.

[Stridder44]

Awesome news! I'm glad they're actually acknowledging this. Hopefully the drivers will be much better than the current ones.

For those worrying about their comp not being supported,you DO NOT NEED BOOT CAMP TO INSTALL ANY VERSION OF WINDOWS.

Yes, but you do need drivers. It's like having a car but not any wheels; whats the point?

[thomasdzubin]

I'm using Sun's VirtualBox at work so I'm familiar and comfortable with it. Does anyone know if Windows 7 runs under the OS X implementation of Virtualbox?

[BearsFan34]

Have MBP 13". Using Boot Camp to run Win7 @ 64 bit. Works fine.

Errrr, "mostly" fine.

Same boat, new 13" MBP. Have Win7 Professional, 64-bit. Everything works great, except for:

--Audio out. The red light is on through the audio in/out port CONSTANTLY, nothing turns it off; also, the audio out is NOT balanced. No amount of tweaking changes this, I've checked boards even here and other places, and some things work for some users; I've tried all the driver updates/rollbacks/command line garbage, nothing works 100%. Audio is louder in the right compared to the left channel, no way to balance it and to make the settings stick. Restart, back to unbalanced.

--Microphone (internal). Doesn't work with things like Skype, TeamSpeak (for PeeCee games). Win7 Control Panel shows that the mic "works," but external programs are unable to recognize the internal mic on the MBP. Plugging in a mic to the audio in/out port is also a FAIL. Same deal, tried updating/changing/rolling back drivers, no dice.

--Not that it matters much to me, but there's no way to turn off the keyboard backlight.

Otherwise, everything else seems to be good. The fan runs CONSTANTLY though in Boot Camp with Win7 Pro 64-bit, and there's no real way to get it to ramp down. So running Win7 is LOUD.

[PygmySurfer]

I think they are dropping support due to lack of true 64-bit on those models. meaning they have the cpus for it but not the logic boards needed. thats why you cant hit 4gb of RAM.

However. I am running Windows 7 32 on two of the Late 2006 models, drivers off the SL Disk worked fine, system runs great.

I'm runnning a Late 2006 15" and I have 4 GB of RAM installed.

I cannot, however, boot a 64-bit Snow Leopard kernel - methinks it might have something to do with the EFI version on these systems.

[Eidorian]

While I might not agree with what Apple is doing, DirectX 9 support under Windows 7 is getting scarce. I'd draw the line there as well but there's nothing preventing you from running Windows 7.

Aero and games work just fine on the Mobility X1600. The Mac Pro just needs a DirectX 10 card drop in and you have much more flexibility with the drivers on it.

[atari1356]

So ... why are they not being supported officially?

So is there any technical reasoning behind this decision?

It may have something to do with the way Microsoft makes the Windows 7 install disks.

When they had the beta version and RC version, the DVD's wouldn't even boot on my 15" MacBook Pro (late 2006). It was problem related to EFI/booting.

I don't recall exactly what the specific solution was... but in order to get the 64 bit Windows 7 (RC) install disc to boot on my computer I had to burn a new copy of the Windows 7 CD/DVD using Nero burning software (with some settings that I don't remember).

The point being, the DVD that Microsoft ships probably won't even boot on those Macs listed as unsupported.

[ghostface147]

Got my 17" Santa Clara MB Pro in July of 06, I wonder where that falls on their support list. Oh well, Fusion works fine for me with W7.

[walnuts]

I have a 24-inch imac from late 2006. I tried both the 32-bit and the 64-bit beta and RTM and could not get either to boot. I wasn't the only one with the issue either. The 64 bit would give a bsod when booting the display driver for the first time. While all of my issues occurred before I could even install the boot camp drivers, I wonder if this problem was resolved... With all of my trouble though, I def won't spend the money just to tool around with Windows 7, no matter how well received it is.

[mrj412]

I'm using Sun's VirtualBox at work so I'm familiar and comfortable with it. Does anyone know if Windows 7 runs under the OS X implementation of Virtualbox?

I have Windows 7 running in it without problem. I am using VirtualBox 3.0.6 with the 64bit Snow Leopard kernel.

[Stridder44]

When they had the beta version and RC version, the DVD's wouldn't even boot on my 15" MacBook Pro (late 2006). It was problem related to EFI/booting.


This is my guess towards why they're drawing the line at 2006 as well.

[AidenShaw]

So is there any technical reasoning behind this decision?

I think they are dropping support due to lack of true 64-bit on those models. meaning they have the cpus for it but not the logic boards needed. thats why you cant hit 4gb of RAM.

Or they're embarrassed that Windows 7 x64 runs on those systems, but OSX 10.6 x64 kernel won't.


Lazy. Apple should have had this today, on day one.

Petty.

I wonder how long before Itunes is supported on Win7...

[Eidorian]

Petty.

I wonder how long before Itunes is supported on Win7...It already is and iTunes 9 adds additional Super Bar support as well.

It may have something to do with the way Microsoft makes the Windows 7 install disks.

When they had the beta version and RC version, the DVD's wouldn't even boot on my 15" MacBook Pro (late 2006). It was problem related to EFI/booting.

I don't recall exactly what the specific solution was... but in order to get the 64 bit Windows 7 (RC) install disc to boot on my computer I had to burn a new copy of the Windows 7 CD/DVD using Nero burning software (with some settings that I don't remember).

The point being, the DVD that Microsoft ships probably won't even boot on those Macs listed as unsupported.I had the EFI 64 booting issue as well for 64-bit copies of Windows 7 under Beta and RC on my Late 2007 MacBook. I haven't tried RTM yet though. I could right now though.

[Xibalba]

I have been using the Windows 7 Ultimate RTM since August running on my June 2009 17in Macbook Pro without any issues. And i am using the 64bit version as well. Runs great. Of course, i only use it to play games that don't run well in Mac. Still think that OS X is better

great way to use windows (gaming) - i still prefer Mac OSX for everything else of course.

strange that this official support for bootcamp will take so long to be released - esp since windows 7 has been out to numerous entities for months now in a very close to RTM or retail form. anyways, i may have to give the virtualization method a shot to see how well that works on my new imac coming my way soon...

[str1f3]

Lazy. Apple should have had this today, on day one.

Kind of annoying especially considering my 13" Macbook Pro's audio + webcam don't work properly in ANY Windows at the moment (XP, Vista, or 7) without hacked drivers.

Wow, you are spoiled. You expect a small company to consistently update their OS, their computers' hardware, work on a tablet, update the Apple TV, perfect the iPhone OS, and immediately support a competitor's OS when it's not even an emergency to do so? Is it that much of a pain to wait no more than two months for an update to an OS that you will barely use?

If you ever heard the stories about how hard Jobs pushes his workers, you wouldn't say something so naive.

[8-Bits]

It should be noted that Win7 includes all the Apple drivers (video, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and touchpad) needed and should work fine with most Macs and MacBooks. And it keeps these drivers current as part of the standard Windows Update function.

It also appears that Win7 can be installed in EFI mode and totally replace OS X (i.e. no BootCamp or virtualization). You should start to hear more about this now that Win7 is officially available.

[slicecom]

Dang, my Mac Pro is a gen 1. Oh well; WinXP still plays the games I have anyway.

But I've been using Windows 7 on my MacPro in BootCamp for months. How is it not compatible? :confused:

[Stridder44]

I wonder how long before Itunes is supported on Win7...

Interestingly enough, I went to download Safari 4 while I was in Windows 7 today and noticed it says "Download for XP, Vista, and 7."

[Jason Beck]

But I've been using Windows 7 on my MacPro in BootCamp for months. How is it not compatible? :confused:

What are your thoughts on it? I am probably going to install it on my MB just to mess around with for a little while. To check it out.

[Kelmon]

Wow, you are spoiled. You expect a small company to consistently update their OS, their computers' hardware, work on a tablet, update the Apple TV, perfect the iPhone OS, and immediately support a competitor's OS when it's not even an emergency to do so? Is it that much of a pain to wait no more than two months for an update to an OS that you will barely use?

If you ever heard the stories about how hard Jobs pushes his workers, you wouldn't say something so naive.

Oh, please. It's not like this is a product launch that has been sprung on Apple and we are only talking about an update to Vista, which they already support. This is about meeting customer's expectations and support in 2-months time is only expected if you have low expectations. I'm sorry but no support on Day 1 is poor and inexcusable.

[Bubba Satori]

Oh, please. It's not like this is a product launch that has been sprung on Apple and we are only talking about an update to Vista, which they already support. This is about meeting customer's expectations and support in 2-months time is only expected if you have low expectations. I'm sorry but no support on Day 1 is poor and inexcusable.

It's a sophomoric way for Apple to flip MS a Neo wave and fart in their general direction at the expense of their costomer's inconvenience. Nothing new here. Is Apple worried that their captive audience can do anything about it ? Like leave ? Yeah, that's going to happen. :D

[Gasu E.]

Speaking if msft, with no advertising according to the news, they just showed the first ever msft store grand opening today. Ummmmm, as a 90-99% mac user and without MS Courier.

The store was packed. Standing room only and had like 700 people the night before trying to get in. Wow.

First ever? Yeah, even I would go to that, just out of curiousity, and to say "I was there."

[apfhex]

Dang, my Mac Pro is a gen 1.
Bollocks. Even though it's not officially supported, the Bootcamp 2.1 and 3.0 drivers for Vista x64 work without issue in Windows 7 x64 on the 1st gen MP (you have to select the 64-bit installer package manually from the disc but they all install fine).

[zorinlynx]

I think they are dropping support due to lack of true 64-bit on those models. meaning they have the cpus for it but not the logic boards needed. thats why you cant hit 4gb of RAM.

However. I am running Windows 7 32 on two of the Late 2006 models, drivers off the SL Disk worked fine, system runs great.

The 2006 Mac Pro is on that list, and you can put 32GB of RAM in it. So that's not the reason.

[slicecom]

What are your thoughts on it? I am probably going to install it on my MB just to mess around with for a little while. To check it out.

Honestly, it's not they huge upgrade that some people make it out to be. It's like vista with a different taskbar (now works like Apple's dock, only not as well) and it seems to be more stable for gaming than Vista. Thats really all I use it for, so I can't comment on other improvements.

[zorinlynx]

But I've been using Windows 7 on my MacPro in BootCamp for months. How is it not compatible? :confused:

How did you install it? I tried two different Windows 7 install DVDs but they both hang when you try to boot them.

[zombitronic]

Apple should have had this today, on day one.

So ... why are they not being supported officially?

The reasoning may be a bit of a political/business decision. Apple doesn't benefit directly from Windows 7 sales (other than dissatisfied Window 7 customers). If support was available today, that may spur some impulse Windows 7 purchases. If they wait out support, they may stem some of those impulsive purchases. That seems to explain why it WILL be supported eventually, just not soon enough to help early adoption.

On the flip-side, you could argue that support of Windows 7 on a Mac available today could spur some impulse purchases of Mac hardware. I would guess that those in the market for Window 7 today on a new machine are looking for cheap hardware, though.

[JimT]

Just FYI, I am running Windows 7 RC in Parallels 4 on a MacPro 3,1. No hiccups or problems at all. I have been meaning to give it a try on my two + year old MacBook with Bootcamp. I'll try it tonight and post if there are any snags.

[sadpanda]

"Support" is such a trivial matter. I'm running Win7 on my MBP without any trouble, even though it's not officially supported yet. I have no doubt that the "unsupported" machines will run Win7 just fine; but if you bitch to Apple when it potentially doesn't work right, they reserve the right to give you the cold shoulder instead of helping you out.

[Anonymous Freak]

Or they're embarrassed that Windows 7 x64 runs on those systems, but OSX 10.6 x64 kernel won't.

That's not it. The earliest MacBook Pro, MacBook, Mac Mini, and iMacs all use Intel's Core Duo, which isn't 64-bit at all. Those models won't run the x64 kernel of *ANY* OS. Yet the MacBook and Mac Mini are *NOT* on the list. Neither is the "Mid 2006" iMac.

Plus, the first Mac Pro *IS* on the unsupported list, even though it *HAS* 64-bit CPUs. (As are the "Late 2006" iMac and MacBook Pro, which both have 64-bit Core 2 Duo CPUs.)

What it looks like to me is that it is graphic driver related. All of the 'excluded' systems have Radeon X1000-series or (in the case of the Mac Pro,) GeForce 7000-series graphics. Same-generation systems that *ARE* supported have Intel GMA950 graphics.

A quick check of Intel, AMD/ATI, and nVidia's websites show that Intel has Windows 7 drivers for GMA950, but AMD does *NOT* have Windows 7 drivers for X1000-series GPUs. (The X1000-series and older are now "Legacy" to AMD. They say you can use Vista drivers as a workaround.) nVidia has Windows 7 drivers for the GeForce 7000-series; but Apple is probably just blanket ruling out the Mac Pro, "just in case" it has a Radeon installed.

[guzhogi]

I wonder about 2 things: deliver Mac OS X install DVDs with 10.6.x rather than 10.6.0 on it like they did with previous versions of the Mac OS. And if so, wether they'll put newer versions of the Boot Camp drivers on them. I don't want to have to do an incremental update thing (like installing version X.0, then X.1, then X.2… X.9) when I need to reinstall the software. I want to be able to install the latest version, or at least go from version x.0 to x.9 in one update rather than 9 separate ones.

On a side note, while I have the Golden Master version of Mac OS X, I think I may want to buy the full retail version when the updated disks come out as well as iLife '10. I don't really want to get the $29 version because I'll have to install Leopard first, then Snow Leopard (annoying as heck). Plus, I use iLife a bit so I might as well bundle the 2 together.

[UltraNurd]

I wonder if the older Mac Pro would be supported if you've upgraded to a newer graphics card (in my case, the 8800GT). My hope is that I'll at least be able to install the new boot camp tools, even if they don't come with tech support.

[Gasu E.]

Lazy. Apple should have had this today, on day one.


That's kind of a "lazy" comment. :)

Seriously, for something as critical as Windows7 on bootcamp, a full iteration of regression and stress testing on the absolute final shipping product is needed. That takes weeks, and is expensive. The Apple schedule allows for that as well as time for a mini-update if problems need to be fixed. It really isn't possible to expedite this, at least without going through enormous expense.

Note that Apple had Day 1 support for iTunes on W7. That was a lot more critical then BootCamp, and Apple pulled out all the stops to achieve this.

[ryannazaretian]

Not like they'll actually support it with the new Bootcamp coming later...

They never have, and probably never will. They've known of an issue that freezes the computer while running Windows Vista or Windows 7 for a year now while using any MacBook pro with the 9600M GT. What have they done about it? Nothing.

Bad:apple:

[AidenShaw]

That's not it. The earliest MacBook Pro, MacBook, Mac Mini, and iMacs all use Intel's Core Duo, which isn't 64-bit at all.

We were talking about the Merom systems with 32-bit chipsets - note the OP said "I think they are dropping support due to lack of true 64-bit on those models. meaning they have the cpus for it but not the logic boards needed. thats why you cant hit 4gb of RAM".

[apfhex]

I wonder if the older Mac Pro would be supported if you've upgraded to a newer graphics card (in my case, the 8800GT). My hope is that I'll at least be able to install the new boot camp tools, even if they don't come with tech support.
See my post and several others above. It works fine.

[AidenShaw]

Seriously, for something as critical as Windows7 on bootcamp, a full iteration of regression and stress testing on the absolute final shipping product is needed. That takes weeks, and is expensive.

Windows 7 was built on 13 July, and was available to vendors the following week.

Apple's had 11 weeks to test a few drivers, most of which will be unchanged from Vista.

This is petty, and makes Apple look bad.


It already is and iTunes 9 adds additional Super Bar support as well.

Doesn't say that here: http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/

[MSD401]

complete bull... Windows 7 runs great on my late 2006 macbook pro..installed no problem... only thing odd is my apple wireless keyboard disconnects frequently when not typing... but I can live with it... I have been to lazy to search for a solution

[Sbrocket]

Weird. I wonder what needs to be updated –*Windows 7 x64 Ultimate with Snow Leopard's Boot Camp v3.0 drivers seems to be working just fine for me so far. Not a hiccup so far, with drivers or Windows 7 proper –*its actually pretty impressive for an OS, certainly better than XP and much much better than Vista (funny how that works).

[Eric S.]

It may have something to do with the way Microsoft makes the Windows 7 install disks.

When they had the beta version and RC version, the DVD's wouldn't even boot on my 15" MacBook Pro (late 2006). It was problem related to EFI/booting.

I don't recall exactly what the specific solution was... but in order to get the 64 bit Windows 7 (RC) install disc to boot on my computer I had to burn a new copy of the Windows 7 CD/DVD using Nero burning software (with some settings that I don't remember).

The point being, the DVD that Microsoft ships probably won't even boot on those Macs listed as unsupported.

I had the same or a similar problem installing XP on my Blackbook. The installation blue-screened with "SESSION3_INSTALLATION_FAILURE". Turns out it was a fairly well-known problem and the solution was to make a copy of the install DVD.

[Cybbe]

Wow, you are spoiled. You expect a small company to consistently update their OS, their computers' hardware, work on a tablet, update the Apple TV, perfect the iPhone OS, and immediately support a competitor's OS when it's not even an emergency to do so? Is it that much of a pain to wait no more than two months for an update to an OS that you will barely use?

If you ever heard the stories about how hard Jobs pushes his workers, you wouldn't say something so naive.

[my emphasis]

Small company? What planet do you live on? Apple (AAPL) just passed Google (GOOG) in terms of market capitalization. It's 6 times the market cap of DELL. Microsoft is one of the few companies worth more. Get real. Apple is a huge multinational company. They could easily have provided drivers for their (limited) range of computers for Windows 7 by today if they wanted to.

It's almost amusing how many on this forum who believe Apple Inc. is a small underdog.

[xIGmanIx]

there is a difference between not supported and doesn't work. I think apple is officially coming around to support this, although, i since its mostly unchanged from vista, and the RC has been out, its just a petty move on their part. I think they are taking the wrong approach to this. By supporting the Win (X) platform, that could allow more people to purchase apple "hardware" knowing they are getting the same experience on a "windows" box.

[Veri]

Well, I guess "we're not supporting your model, which is under 3 years old and still under AppleCare" is one way of dealing with my iMac-only Windows 7 problems. Bye, Apple.

[coolpal]

But I've been using Windows 7 on my MacPro in BootCamp for months. How is it not compatible? :confused:

Me too... I have had beta, RC and final version of windows 7 running on my late 2006 MBP (with C2D but only 3+GB Ram support). So how is my MBP not compatible with windows 7?? (I admit, I haven't tried the 64bit but if vista 64 runs on it, so should 7)

C'mon apple... just because you come up with shiny new hardware every year, you don't have to treat my "still going strong classic Mac" like ****.... I am sick of you for not letting 1st gen iPhone not have voice control, MMS etc., (But I did end up upgrading to 3Gs.. I still think that's a lame name btw).
Also, to add to the complaint list, I just bought a AEBS less than 2 months ago, and now I feel like I have something absolete already... not that I am going to get rid of it for a new one anytime soon (or for another AEBS for that matter)... it's just that I feel a little pushed back :(

pal :)

[kbmb]

Or they're embarrassed that Windows 7 x64 runs on those systems, but OSX 10.6 x64 kernel won't.

Seriously though.....why do most people care about running a 64-bit kernel?

My 2006 Mac Pro won't run the 64-bit kernel, but I could care less. I do heavy web development/design/video on my machine and it runs beautifully on Snow Leopard. And I have 11GB of RAM. What am I missing with only running the 32-bit kernel?

Until applications catch up, most people won't/don't care.

The BIGGEST consumer focused issue with 32/64 bit is the 4GB RAM limit.

-Kevin

[Michael73]

So I have both an MBP and MP both with VMWare Fusion both running XP SP3. I want to put Win7 on the machines but have software that only runs in XP. Would you install a full copy (not upgrade) of Win7 and run it as a VM side-by-side with XP, OR would you upgrade XP and try and use Win7's virtualization program to run XP...in essence running a virtual machine inside a virtual machine? Also, does VMWare let you run more than 1 virtual machine side-by-side (on my MP I have more than ample hardware resources)?

[balamw]

Apple does not provide technical phone support for installing, using, or recovering Microsoft Windows. Support is available for using Boot Camp Setup Assistant, as well as installing or restoring Boot Camp software while booted into Windows. Support articles and discussions may also be available on Apple's support website.

We're on our own anyhow.

The Core Duo machines are really a redheaded step child aren't they! I guess I'll have to try out the W7HP32 on my 17" iMac before I commit to install the real thing.

B

[Consultant]

Wonder why my MacBook (Late 2006) is supported? That's weird.

Looks like someone forgot the unsupported info for MacBook.

I am guessing only Santa Rosa boards and newer are supported.

Seriously though.....why do most people care about running a 64-bit kernel?

...

The BIGGEST consumer focused issue with 32/64 bit is the 4GB RAM limit.


Because there is huge difference between 32bit and 64bit microsoft windows.

However these people don't know that Mac OS X even in 32bit, runs a hybrid mode. Even 32bit Mac OS can take >4gb of ram if the mobo supports it.

[Gasu E.]

Windows 7 was built on 13 July, and was available to vendors the following week.

Apple's had 11 weeks to test a few drivers, most of which will be unchanged from Vista.

This is petty, and makes Apple look bad.

Well, let's look at this logically. Like any well-run company, Apple tries to maintain their various development teams at a more or less-steady level-- that's the most cost-effective way to minimize overheads due to retraining, hiring and firing, etc. I'm sure Bootcamp has a pretty steady headcount for SQA and development. Now consider that for a major item like Windows 7, Apple has to target a large set of hardware, peripherals, and applications-- not just individually, but in combinations and various configurations. Now also consider that the Window 7 introduction requires a huge burst of effort relative to the size of the Bootcamp team, so Apple either has to a. spread the work out over a longer time, or b. borrow SQA and development people from other teams. But then consider the other programs that Apple has had to deliver in parallel-- i.e., the products Apple introduced 2 days ago!

I've been an engineering or product manager in the computer industry (but never Apple) for 20+ years; this is a common problem. Customers tend to view a company narrowly in terms of their own pet products or issues, and don't understand why the company doesn't bring all the great power of the giant corporation to bear on their pet issue. Believe me, if Apple had taken resource off another program to expedite this issue, some other customer would have had cause to complain just as loudly! :)

[Veri]

Seriously though.....why do most people care about running a 64-bit kernel?

Because working with 64 bits at a time is more efficient than working with 32 bits at a time.
Because 64 bit mode offers more registers.
Because you want your drivers and your kernel to take advantage of 64 bits, not just your apps.

An 8-bit machine could access 2^64 bytes of memory, with suitable hardware support. But we don't use 8-bit machines because accessing 8 bits at a time is slow. Also, venerable as the 6502 is, we want more than A,X,Y.

[greg400]

I never really understood how Apple updates the BootCamp drivers. Do you have to insert your Snow Leopard disk and it will put the updated drivers on it? Someone please explain how this driver upgrade works. Also i'll be damned if they still don't offer 64-bit support for a 9,1 iMac. I don't want to have to install drivers one by one again.

[HLdan]

Yes. If you get tge 64 bit version.
Speaking if msft, with no advertising according to the news, they just showed the first ever msft store grand opening today. Ummmmm, as a 90-99% mac user and without MS Courier.

The store was packed. Standing room only and had like 700 people the night before trying to get in. Wow.

So what?? That doesn't say anything. The real deal is if MS can maintain packed stores. The Apple retails stores are always packed full of customers.

[Bubba Satori]

Wow, you are spoiled. You expect a small company to consistently update their OS, their computers' hardware, work on a tablet, update the Apple TV, perfect the iPhone OS, and immediately support a competitor's OS when it's not even an emergency to do so? Is it that much of a pain to wait no more than two months for an update to an OS that you will barely use?

A small company ? :eek: Dude, seriously. :D

[Consultant]

We're on our own anyhow.

The Core Duo machines are really a redheaded step child aren't they! I guess I'll have to try out the W7HP32 on my 17" iMac before I commit to install the real thing.

B

Not just Core Duo. Also Core 2 Duo non santa rosa. In short, all pre-santa-rosa machines.

MacBook Pro (17-inch, Late 2006) is C2D.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/stats/macbook-pro-core-2-duo-2.33-17-specs.html

Lazy. Apple should have had this today, on day one.


Are you kidding?

So you would design a product to work with something that is not even known yet? You need to take some courses in economics.

FYI:
First MacBook Pro was introduced on January 10, 2006.
Vista was released November, 2006.
Windoes 7 was even not a potential product until recently.

[Eidorian]

Windoes 7 was even not a potential product until recently.Where have you been the last year? :confused:

[gnasher729]

Because working with 64 bits at a time is more efficient than working with 32 bits at a time.
Because 64 bit mode offers more registers.
Because you want your drivers and your kernel to take advantage of 64 bits, not just your apps.

I think the original poster was talking about the fact that a well-designed operating system will spend a very tiny percentage of its time executing kernel code, so whether the kernel code runs a bit faster or slower matters actually very little.

[Consultant]

Where have you been the last year? :confused:

"Recently" is a flexible term and can mean many things depending on the context.

Fact: W7 isn't a product when MBP was first released.

[HLdan]

They're making me feel bad about my Mac:



Until now I thought it was still a pretty good machine.

Excellent, Apple is suppose to make you feel good about your Mac by making sure that Windows drivers are supported on it.
I guess it's not a good machine with just OS X on it huh? :rolleyes:

[jmadlena]

Windows 7 RC runs just fine on my iMac Core Duo. No good can come from Apple doing this. :rolleyes:

You know how whenever Apple announces another record quarter everyone is happy and smiling and ecstatic and everything? This is one of those ways that Apple keeps getting those record quarters.

Giving consumers incentive to buy new machine. Artificial or not, this is a business strategy, one that appears to work.

[Amdahl]

They're making me feel bad about my Mac:

Until now I thought it was still a pretty good machine.

It is.. You just haven't paid Apple any money lately.

Wow, you are spoiled. You expect a small company to consistently update their OS, their computers' hardware, work on a tablet, update the Apple TV, perfect the iPhone OS, and immediately support a competitor's OS when it's not even an emergency to do so? Is it that much of a pain to wait no more than two months for an update to an OS that you will barely use? What small company are you talking about? We're talking about Apple on this forum.

[DavidSan]

Because working with 64 bits at a time is more efficient than working with 32 bits at a time.
Because 64 bit mode offers more registers.
Because you want your drivers and your kernel to take advantage of 64 bits, not just your apps.

An 8-bit machine could access 2^64 bytes of memory, with suitable hardware support. But we don't use 8-bit machines because accessing 8 bits at a time is slow. Also, venerable as the 6502 is, we want more than A,X,Y.

Although this is technically correct. In terms of practical means, runnning a 64 bit kernel or 32 bit kernel, makes no perceptible performance difference in Mac OS X.

While 64 bit could mean a 10% percent performance gain in Applications, the portion of Mac OS X that needs to run in 32 bit mode (Kernel) is fairly small, so no performance gain is achieved by jumping to 64 bits. At least, not these days. It is more important to have a reliable kernel, and 64 bit kernel is still very immature.

Mac OS X is a completely different OS than Windows and Linux. So while Windows and Linux could obtain some performance benefits using 64 bit kernels, Mac OS X is already having the performance benefits of 64 computing while retaining compatibility with 32 bit drivers.

A 64 kernel, on the other side, could improve security features in Mac OS X. While better security is welcome, the low incidence of viruses on the platform (0 - Zero cases) does not make it a priority.

[uk_blaster]

I walked into a apple store early this year because the nvidia 9600m in my unibody macbook pro died while I was booted into XP on bootcamp.

Because I wanted to make the genius's diagnosis as easy as possible, I told him the unit died while using my bootcamp partition.

The first thing the "genius" said to me was, Sorry, we don't support windows".
So how do you no longer "support" something if you never supported it in the first place?

They support the installation of windows on boot camp but nothing else? Even though it was clearly a hardware failure. :rolleyes:

Applecare finally replaced the logic board after 3 trips to the apple store.

[TimmyDee]

The odd thing about the Mac Pro note is that they only mentioned the 2.66 and 3.0 GHz versions. You could BTO a 2.0 GHz version, which is curiously missing. Oversight?

[flopticalcube]

So it's supported on my Core Duo GMA950 mini but not on my Core 2 Duo X1600 17" iMac. Oh well, at least the Vista drivers still work. This is AMD's fault I gather for not supporting DX9 cards in 7, right?

[str1f3]

A small company ? :eek: Dude, seriously. :D

Umm. Yeah. Compare Microsoft's and Apple's workforce. Or Sony's and Apple's. They are magnitudes smaller. When you understand that, then look at the fact that out of those three companies, only one produces their own hardware and software exclusively.

[Anonymous Freak]

We were talking about the Merom systems with 32-bit chipsets - note the OP said "I think they are dropping support due to lack of true 64-bit on those models. meaning they have the cpus for it but not the logic boards needed. thats why you cant hit 4gb of RAM".

Somewhat. The "late 2006" models have the Merom (Core 2 Duo) chips. And the chipset *DOES* support 4 GB of RAM, just fine. (Per Intel (http://www.intel.com/products/notebook/chipsets/945pm/945pm-overview.htm).) And, again, the Mac Pro (that is on the 'unsupported' list,) has Xeon 5100-series processors on the Intel 5000 chipset, which is absolutely, positively 64-bit capable. (Supports up to 64 GB of RAM.)

But the "early 2006" models have the older "Yonah" (Core Duo) chip, which is only 32-bit. (But, for that matter, Intel's 32-bit processors have supported more than 4 GB of RAM since the Pentium Pro was released in 1997; through a technology called "Physical Address Extension". Still limited to 4 GB per individual process, but the system and OS can support far more. For example, I had a Pentium Pro server in 2000 with 16 GB of RAM in it.)

64-bit isn't the determinant here.

[aafuss1]

Looks like the early 2006 Core Solo/Duo Mac mini is supported-while the early 2006 iMac will not be supported

[Anonymous Freak]

Umm. Yeah. Compare Microsoft's and Apple's workforce. Or Sony's and Apple's. They are magnitudes smaller. When you understand that, then look at the fact that out of those three companies, only one produces their own hardware and software exclusively.

And HP has twice as many employees as Sony. And Red Hat has less than 1/10th as many as Apple. Number of employees doesn't matter. Really. As long as you have enough to get the job done, it gets done.

Apple has plenty of employees to work on this with if they wanted to. They just don't want to. I don't blame them.

[Eidorian]

Somewhat. The "late 2006" models have the Merom (Core 2 Duo) chips. And the chipset *DOES* support 4 GB of RAM, just fine. (Per Intel (http://www.intel.com/products/notebook/chipsets/945pm/945pm-overview.htm).) And, again, the Mac Pro (that is on the 'unsupported' list,) has Xeon 5100-series processors on the Intel 5000 chipset, which is absolutely, positively 64-bit capable. (Supports up to 64 GB of RAM.)

But the "early 2006" models have the older "Yonah" (Core Duo) chip, which is only 32-bit. (But, for that matter, Intel's 32-bit processors have supported more than 4 GB of RAM since the Pentium Pro was released in 1997; through a technology called "Physical Address Extension". Still limited to 4 GB per individual process, but the system and OS can support far more. For example, I had a Pentium Pro server in 2000 with 16 GB of RAM in it.)

64-bit isn't the determinant here.The 945GM/PM chipsets are limited to 32-bit memory addressing. You can run a 64-bit operating system but you'll have to take a cut from the 4 GB addressing from system RAM for other peripherals.

[eastcoastsurfer]

Umm. Yeah. Compare Microsoft's and Apple's workforce. Or Sony's and Apple's. They are magnitudes smaller. When you understand that, then look at the fact that out of those three companies, only one produces their own hardware and software exclusively.

Um, then hire more people. Apple has some of the largest margins in the industry for a hardware maker.

[Anonymous Freak]

Looks like the early 2006 Core Solo/Duo Mac mini is supported-while the early 2006 iMac will not be supported

Correct. And the "Early 2006" and "Late 2006" iMacs are unsupported, while the "Mid 2006" iMac IS supported.

It's the graphics chip, pure and simple. ATI/AMD doesn't provide official support for the Radeon X1600 or X1900 in Windows 7, so Apple can't provide graphics drivers for them. Intel does provide support for the GMA 950 in Windows 7, so Apple can provide those drivers.

What bothers me (even though I don't have one,) is the lack of support for the original Mac Pro. I mean, it shipped with a GeForce 7600 card as standard, which is supported in Windows 7. The Radeon X1900 was an additional-cost upgrade. Just put in a checker into the OS X Boot Camp Assistant to see what video card you have, and pop up a big nasty warning "YOUR VIDEO CARD IS NOT SUPPORTED IN WINDOWS 7!"

[flopticalcube]

64-bit isn't the determinant here.
Clearly, since Core Duo and Core Solo (absolutely and in every way 32-bit) are not on the unsupported list. Its AMD's fault.

[js81]

So is my iMac finally "old" now? I mean, geez, its only a 17" white one from late 2006. C'mon... 3 years ain't nothin'. :D

Actually, I'm quite surprised - it IS three years old and I'm STILL happy with its performance (most of the time). Do I want a new one? Heck yeah! But mostly for the huge 27" screen and 16GB RAM limit (I'm limited at 3GB... grr...)

[str1f3]

Um, then hire more people. Apple has some of the largest margins in the industry for a hardware maker.

Apple selectively hires who they view as the best people out there. That is why you have people like Roz Ho who lead Project Pink into disaster. Not only that but they have to compete with Google for those kinds of people and though some may love to work for Jobs, others can't take the stress.

And HP has twice as many employees as Sony. And Red Hat has less than 1/10th as many as Apple. Number of employees doesn't matter. Really. As long as you have enough to get the job done, it gets done.

Apple has plenty of employees to work on this with if they wanted to. They just don't want to. I don't blame them.

What does Red Hat have to do with this? They do about 1/10 the stuff that Apple does. If you desperately need to perfectly run an OS natively that just came out today and which is not being used widely by any business as of yet, you should have bought a Windows machine.

You have no idea how many people they have available to work on this and yes it does matter. They've had to move many of the OS X people onto the iPhone OS (like a Forstall). It is part of the reason why OSX development has slightly slowed down to the point where Microsoft is up to the performance of Leopard instead of usually being 5 or 6 years behind.

[Full of Win]

Meh, I have a late 06 20 inch iMac, but I'm pretty happy with Fusion.

[Eric S.]

I never really understood how Apple updates the BootCamp drivers. Do you have to insert your Snow Leopard disk and it will put the updated drivers on it? Someone please explain how this driver upgrade works.

Under Windows XP at least, you just run Apple Software Update.

[AidenShaw]

...try and use Win7's virtualization program to run XP...in essence running a virtual machine inside a virtual machine?

It simply won't work to run Virtual PC within a VM - the hardware running the host OS must support VT.

The physical machine has VT, which supports the first virtual machine. That VM, however, doesn't have VT support, so it can't run Virtual PC.

Only ISA emulators like QEMU can run VMs within VMs.


Even 32bit Mac OS can take >4gb of ram if the mobo supports it.

Like Windows 32-bit for the last 10 years...


So you would design a product to work with something that is not even known yet? You need to take some courses in economics.

At the driver level, Windows 7 is a minor tweak to Vista (hence the "Windows 6.1" internal version number).

The FT was public in January, the RC in May, and RTM since the latter part of July.

Apple's had basically 3 months with the final bits, and seems to have done nothing other than come up with the list of systems that it won't support.

Really bad form - it shows the rotten side of Apple.


...runnning a 64 bit kernel or 32 bit kernel, makes no perceptible performance difference in Mac OS X.

This is simply wrong. The 32-bit kernel on 10.6 is slower when running 64-bit apps than the 64-bit kernel.

"Snow Leopard will deliver both a 64-bit kernel and a full set of 64-bit bundled apps, erasing the entire TLB flush issue because the new kernel won't have to share any address space, even when running 32-bit apps (below right).

This will benefit all 64-bit Mac users with a Core 2 CPU or better, even those lacking a Santa Rosa platform-style chipset, as being able to run 64-bit code and virtual memory is not tied to the amount of addressable system RAM,"

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/18349/

I'd suggest using your favorite internet search tool and look for 'osx performance tlb '64-bit'" if you want to understand why.

[thejadedmonkey]

Don't worry, Apple will find many more ways to artificially diminish the value of your Mac over time.

Tell me about it. This is just unacceptable that less than 3 years after I purchased a $2000 computer, it is already unsupported. :mad:

Really Apple? Will you stop supporting the Core Duo's in next OS X release? Then how will you manage the artificially make my Core 2 Duo model obsolete?

[CADer]

How do I know what year I bought my MBP in?

[Unprocessed1]

How do I know what year I bought my MBP in?

Look it up through your serial number. You can find it out online, just google, and there should be a few sites. (I think you can find out directly through apple also.)

[McBeats]

why are people giving negatives to this, this is a good thing :)

[CADer]

Look it up through your serial number. You can find it out online, just google, and there should be a few sites. (I think you can find out directly through apple also.)

Sweet mine is Mid 2007 I am good - now should I spend the $29.99 to buy windows or just keep XP...?

Anyone need help getting a legal version of Windows 7 for $29.99 (student discount program) I have many friends that will not be taking advantage of this deal and might just jump on it and sell them for more or just hook other up with the a deal.

[LeviG]

I find it a bit funny that apple are no longer supporting the old models on Windows 7 yet they work fine with vista.

90% of the drivers on windows 7 are identical to the ones on vista and ms even kept the version code the same 6.x to allow easier coding so its not like new code is needed.

Oh well thats apple for you but the likelihood is that most of those would work fine on windows 7 using the vista drivers from bootcamp.

[thejadedmonkey]

How did you install it? I tried two different Windows 7 install DVDs but they both hang when you try to boot them.

Don't use the beta ISO, use the finalized version ;)

"Recently" is a flexible term and can mean many things depending on the context.

Fact: W7 isn't a product when MBP was first released.

No, however when I got my Macbook Pro, Vista was the current Microsoft OS. This means that Apple is not supporting a SINGLE WINDOWS OS upgrade on my machine.

Also, this has NOTHING to do with the video card. How do I know this? Simple: Because I booted up into Windows 7 on my "unsupported" MBP, and Windows automatically found and installed video card drivers for it.

[Eric S.]

why are people giving negatives to this, this is a good thing :)

I don't understand what's good about it -the fact that Apple won't support Windows 7 in Boot Camp until later this year, or that several Mac models apparently will never be supported?

[Peace]

I don't understand what's good about it -the fact that Apple won't support Windows 7 in Boot Camp until later this year, or that several Mac models apparently will never be supported?


Tell that to the myriad of 3rd party hardware vendors that don't support Windows 7.;)

[AidenShaw]

Tell that to the myriad of 3rd party hardware vendors that don't support Windows 7.;)

Funny. That "myriad" never affected me. My graphics driver, network driver, disk controller driver, and others were ready when I downloaded the Beta, the RC, and the RTM.

For most things, though, it was simply "load the Vista x86/x64 driver" and go.

Even for laptops, all the strange power management and function key stuff from Vista, even the fingerprint readers, "just worked".

And, I could log into the guest account without all of my files disappearing! :eek:

[Peace]

Funny. That "myriad" never affected me. My graphics driver, network driver, disk controller driver, and others were ready when I downloaded the Beta, the RC, and the RTM.

For most things, though, it was simply "load the Vista x86/x64 driver" and go.

Even for laptops, all the strange power management and function key stuff from Vista, even the fingerprint readers, "just worked".

And, I could log into the guest account without all of my files disappearing! :eek:

It may not have affected you but it sure has affected a LOT of people.

Can't find the correct drivers,drivers not compatible.
The list goes on and you know it Aiden.

[Unprocessed1]

Sweet mine is Mid 2007 I am good - now should I spend the $29.99 to buy windows or just keep XP...?

Anyone need help getting a legal version of Windows 7 for $29.99 (student discount program) I have many friends that will not be taking advantage of this deal and might just jump on it and sell them for more or just hook other up with the a deal.

I think you need a vista key to use the upgrade. It's an upgrade, not the actual OS install disk.

[inlovewithi]

I bought the Professional Version, but I think I'll be using the RC version until late February. It'll give me a chance to checkout the evaluation copies of Photoshop CS3 and CS4.

[AidenShaw]

I bought the Professional Version, but I think I'll be using the RC version until late February. It'll give me a chance to checkout the evaluation copies of Photoshop CS3 and CS4.

Do you plan to sell the unopened Pro copy if you don't like CS4?

I can't think of any other reason to run unsupported beta software when you have the released version in your hand....

[AidenShaw]

It may not have affected you but it sure has affected a LOT of people.

Can't find the correct drivers,drivers not compatible.
The list goes on and you know it Aiden.

You're probably right - I'm looking at it from the "upgrade from Vista" or XP perspective.

If you're running Windows 3.1, you'll probably have more issues when upgrading. :p

[Stridder44]

I walked into a apple store early this year because the nvidia 9600m in my unibody macbook pro died while I was booted into XP on bootcamp.

Because I wanted to make the genius's diagnosis as easy as possible, I told him the unit died while using my bootcamp partition.

The first thing the "genius" said to me was, Sorry, we don't support windows".
So how do you no longer "support" something if you never supported it in the first place?

They support the installation of windows on boot camp but nothing else? Even though it was clearly a hardware failure. :rolleyes:

Applecare finally replaced the logic board after 3 trips to the apple store.

Don't even give them the opportunity to call you out on something like that. Just say it failed during "regular" use (read: running OS X).

[Veri]

Tell that to the myriad of 3rd party hardware vendors that don't support Windows 7.;)

I held Apple to higher standards :cool:. Pages such as this one (http://www.apple.com/macosx/compatibility/) or that one (http://store.apple.com/uk/browse/guide/windows) don't scream to me, "not supported!"

[Stridder44]

why are people giving negatives to this, this is a good thing :)

My guess is anyone who has a Mac from 2006 or earlier with intentions of running Windows 7. Otherwise, no clue.

All these other people just sound like "OMG apple won't let my imac G4 run windows 7 WTF THIS IS BS APPLE :mad: Looks like im buying pcs from now on".

[Dagless]

Balls to that. Both my iMacs aren't supported, and I have a fresh copy of Windows 7 sitting right here (waiting till the weekend to install it). But Apple won't be supporting it? Wonder what the reasoning is "buy a newer Mac"? No Apple, my next machines are homebuilt PC's. Maybe with that new Psystar EFI thingymajig.

[Mackan]

Lazy. Apple should have had this today, on day one.

Kind of annoying especially considering my 13" Macbook Pro's audio + webcam don't work properly in ANY Windows at the moment (XP, Vista, or 7) without hacked drivers.

Here you got it; Apple provide crap support via Boot Camp today. Their drivers and updates are a joke.

When they decide to 'support' Windows 7 later this year, there will be no support. Just the same old crap drivers, and a lot of stuff not working.

[Peace]

Here you got it; Apple provide crap support via Boot Camp today. Their drivers and updates are a joke.

When they decide to 'support' Windows 7 later this year, there will be no support. Just the same old crap drivers, and a lot of stuff not working.


Not true. Apple has it down now. Watch.;)

[AidenShaw]

Not true. Apple has it down now. Watch.;)

Wins the "post of the day" award for something, not sure what! :eek:

Apple has a vested interest in having making the Windows 7 experience on Apple hardware sub-par.

Shipping it late, with poor performance, and lots of bugs - Mission Accomplished!

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/20060627-bush%2520mission%2520accomplished.jpg

[jlc1978]

Awesome news! I'm glad they're actually acknowledging this. Hopefully the drivers will be much better than the current ones.



Yes, but you do need drivers. It's like having a car but not any wheels; whats the point?

Or without windows, for that manner.

At any rate, I just got my upgrade (29 at educational pricing) and neither Parallels or Fusion can be upgraded due to compatibility issues with the upgrade and WinXP.

[irnchriz]

Wins the "post of the day" award for something, not sure what! :eek:

Apple has a vested interest in having making the Windows 7 experience on Apple hardware sub-par.

Shipping it late, with poor performance, and lots of bugs - Mission Accomplished!

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/20060627-bush%2520mission%2520accomplished.jpg

Oh, come on now. Apple doesn't need to lift a finger to cause problems with windows 7 performance. Just install it, use it for a few months and BAM! slow ass PC. Windows 7 just clogs down with crap just like Vista before it. For no apparent reason it just bogs down and the only way to fix it is with a reinstall. I have had to reinstall our test rigs twice now since running 7 RC and RTM. Other than putting office on them they have had nothing else installed and have been used daily for email and web browsing.

Again, just like Vista, initial impressions were promising but after some time in the real world the **** starts to leak out..

[AidenShaw]

Or without windows, for that manner.

At any rate, I just got my upgrade (29 at educational pricing) and neither Parallels or Fusion can be upgraded due to compatibility issues with the upgrade and WinXP.

You can "upgrade" XP to Windows 7, you just need to do a "throwaway" Vista upgrade first:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8648817&postcount=283

[AidenShaw]

Other than putting office on them they have had nothing else installed and have been used daily for email and web browsing.

So, you don't install any software on your "test rigs"???

Please back this up with something to keep me from putting it in the "FUD folder".

[Veri]

Apple doesn't need to lift a finger to cause problems with windows 7 performance. Just install it, use it for a few months and BAM! slow ass PC.

So, erm, what did your comparison of snapshots created over time reveal? I'm assuming, since you're testing fitness for some purpose and you've identified a repeatable issue, that you're actually trying to find out what the problem is. As most parts in your computer are volatile, we can assume that some files on your hard drive, or the organisation of files on the drive, have changed in some way. What did you check?

I'm not asking to be facetious - I really am interested in informed diagnoses of problems which develop over time. There are so many reports of various systems over the decades "just getting slower until I give up and reinstall" but few attempts to identify exactly what's happening.

[organerito]

It is good to have read all of these posts. I am considering very strongly to buy my first Mac. I plan to use Windows 7 too. I would like the machine to run both OSes very well if I am going to pay a lot of money for it. I have been using W7 and it is very good.
I have heard about some nasty bugs in SL and Apple is very slow to update. I'll wait for more reviews about it.

The iPhone is my first Apple product. If the experience of an iPhone is similar to the experience of Mac computer, I'll get it immediately. However, there is no way I'll buy a expensive machine with a lot of bugs.

[Eric S.]

All these other people just sound like "OMG apple won't let my imac G4 run windows 7 WTF THIS IS BS APPLE :mad: Looks like im buying pcs from now on".

Are you equating the iMac G4 with early Intel iMacs? Because I don't recall anyone mentioning a PPC iMac.

I have been using W7 and it is very good.
I have heard about some nasty bugs in SL and Apple is very slow to update.

Are you kidding? SL was released two months ago, there's already been one update and the second will be out any day now.

[Eidorian]

So, you don't install any software on your "test rigs"???

Please back this up with something to keep me from putting it in the "FUD folder".I pretty much ran the RC abusively for months on an AMD machine and Windows 7 shined the entire time. Games, ancient software, and lots of other applications. It still cranked out massive frames per second and would record my HDTV streams simultaneously without a care.

On a quad core it's gaming with Handbrake simultaneously. :cool:

[jlc1978]

You can "upgrade" XP to Windows 7, you just need to do a "throwaway" Vista upgrade first:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8648817&postcount=283

Yes, but unfortunately I don't have Vista and MS appears to have pulled the upgrade d/l now that W7 is out.

Torrents? Personally, not worth the risk of getting a doctored copy.

[Bill Gates]

What I would like to see is a firmware update offering UEFI 2.0+ compatibility for all 2007 and later Macs to eliminate the need for BIOS emulation altogether. Windows 7 seems to work fine on my MacBook Pro aside from the fact that the keyboard backlighting always returns to maximum brightness after a reboot, but the behavior was the same under Windows Vista as well. I don't see much coming in the update aside from official support for currently unsupported configurations, and minor driver tweaks.

[esaias]

oh this is just great.

I have a mid 2006 MP (2.66ghz) which was bought because of the dual platform idea.

boot camp turned out to be a f*-ing lie. XP drivers were crap (bad DPC latencies all over, and ofcourese the lovely keyboard manager) and now they are not supporting windows 7 on this machine. My intention was to upgrade my MP, which is an audio workstation, to 64bit W7 etc, etc, blah blah, down to the point, apparently Apple's workstation lifespan is max 3 years. This is just so "#"#€&"-ing unprofessional. In pro world support (including legacy products) is EVERYTHING! Apple has none of that, tghey only tell you to buy the latest whatever hardware or software.

I'm stranting to feel bad that I didn't buy that Dell 690 when it was a choice of MP or 690. (if you're wondering why I even bought the mac, the reason was that I had a delusion that Logic Pro would be revolutionary good for my audio production, but it turned out to be the worst money-down-the-drain investment ever)

-t

[AidenShaw]

Yes, but unfortunately I don't have Vista and MS appears to have pulled the upgrade d/l now that W7 is out.

Torrents? Personally, not worth the risk of getting a doctored copy.

Borrow a Vista DVD from a friend. It's not piracy, since you're not going to use an illegitimate key - you'll use the builtin "grace" period.

Even with the torrents, you should be able to find a trustworthy MD5 to verify that the download is clean.

[ltldrummerboy]

Boot Camp 3.0 (from the Snow Leopard disc) has been working flawlessly on my mid-2009 15" MBP running Windows 7 Professional 64-bit. I'm not sure I'll need an update by the end of the year, but I'll take it anyway.

[AidenShaw]

Boot Camp 3.0 (from the Snow Leopard disc) has been working flawlessly on my mid-2009 15" MBP running Windows 7 Professional 64-bit.

I've been running systems with Win7 and Vista x64 drivers all through the Beta, TAP and RC periods. My experience has been that if a Vista driver loads on Win7, it's fine. The few things that are incompatible are tagged, so that an incompatible driver won't load.

[Anonymous Freak]

Also, this has NOTHING to do with the video card. How do I know this? Simple: Because I booted up into Windows 7 on my "unsupported" MBP, and Windows automatically found and installed video card drivers for it.

Note that I never said Windows 7 doesn't run on "unsupported" video chips; I am using it just fine on mine. It's just that *Apple* can't "support" it because AMD/ATI doesn't provide finalized Windows 7 drivers for those video chips. AMD/ATI even had beta Windows 7 drivers for them (Catalyst 9.3 or earlier,) it's that they cut older from the final Windows 7 driver package.

Yes, Windows 7 includes built-in, old drivers for those video chips. But they aren't "full-featured", so Apple isn't going to "support" that configuration.

Of course, I find it particularly odd since Apple doesn't provide actual "support" for Windows on Boot Camp at all... As I said, they should just pop up a warning.

[MacRumorUser]

Just another Apple way of making perfectly serviceable machines 'seem' redundant by artificial measures.

Apple want us to upgrade at least every three years whether our machines need it or not.

As much as I love my MacPro 2.66 - it seems to be an oximoron that the system touted as being the most upgradeable and serviceable machine is encumbered by so many artifical restrictions in regards to upgrade paths. No efi on graphics cards locking them out, no 64 bit snow leopard kernel, no windows 7 support ?? When time after time it's been demonstrated that the machine is more than capable of handling such.

Oh well.....

[CQd44]

Just another Apple way of making perfectly serviceable machines 'seem' redundant by artificial measures.

Apple want us to upgrade at least every three years whether our machines need it or not.

As much as I love my MacPro 2.66 - it seems to be an oximoron that the system touted as being the most upgradeable and serviceable machine is encumbered by so many artifical restrictions in regards to upgrade paths. No efi on graphics cards locking them out, no 64 bit snow leopard kernel, no windows 7 support ?? When time after time it's been demonstrated that the machine is more than capable of handling such.

Oh well.....

There are ways to get unsupported graphics cards running using NVInject. Beyond graphics cards, I don't know. I don't understand Apple locking out 64 bit kernels.

[irnchriz]

So, erm, what did your comparison of snapshots created over time reveal? I'm assuming, since you're testing fitness for some purpose and you've identified a repeatable issue, that you're actually trying to find out what the problem is. As most parts in your computer are volatile, we can assume that some files on your hard drive, or the organisation of files on the drive, have changed in some way. What did you check?

I'm not asking to be facetious - I really am interested in informed diagnoses of problems which develop over time. There are so many reports of various systems over the decades "just getting slower until I give up and reinstall" but few attempts to identify exactly what's happening.

We have 6 test systems all running windows 7 ultimate, these have had various applications installed on them to test viability on the new OS. I kept one of the test systems, flattened it and reinstalled 7 on it. I use this system daily purely for Outlook 2007 (connected to out exchange server) and run Office 2007 word and excel for creating and editing documents.

This system is also used for general browsing and has the Adobe flash plugin installed for both firefox and IE8.

And thats about exciting as it gets.

After 3 months of daily use it was becoming slow to load even the 'explorer'. We set about updating the drivers, as during this time many hardware drivers have become available, but this made no difference.

After reinstalling everything ran as expected. Our systems guys have been looking for a cause to the slowdowns but as of yet have no definite fix. They have disabled auto defrag and a couple of other services as they think this may be part of the issue.

[bobnugget]

Sounds weird to me - I had 7 Beta and RC running nicely on my old MBP Core 2 2.16 Ghz, using the Vista drivers that came with Leopard and a few extra ones from around the web (new ATi drivers, WLAN drivers, etc). Good news is, it all worked (although I had some fun seeking out drivers). Looks like apple can't be bothered testing it to me.

[celtikmind]

We have 6 test systems all running windows 7 ultimate, these have had various applications installed on them to test viability on the new OS. I kept one of the test systems, flattened it and reinstalled 7 on it. I use this system daily purely for Outlook 2007 (connected to out exchange server) and run Office 2007 word and excel for creating and editing documents.

This system is also used for general browsing and has the Adobe flash plugin installed for both firefox and IE8.

And thats about exciting as it gets.

After 3 months of daily use it was becoming slow to load even the 'explorer'. We set about updating the drivers, as during this time many hardware drivers have become available, but this made no difference.

After reinstalling everything ran as expected. Our systems guys have been looking for a cause to the slowdowns but as of yet have no definite fix. They have disabled auto defrag and a couple of other services as they think this may be part of the issue.

From a purely scientific viewpoint this might actually be the issue. It isn't a very good thing to leave suspected things disabled when disabling them in the first place seemed to have no impact on the suspected cause... ;)

Imagine your doctor doing the same when trying to set to a diagnosis.

Disregard after testing a theory but don't leave them disabled or you might never find the real cause (treat the system, not the part).

It would be interesting to read what you'd find out as this seems to be a common problem to the Windows environment.

[Axegrinder]

I have a mid-2006 Core Duo (not Core 2) iMac. I've been running W7 RC for months and now the full retail version with almost zero problems (has crashed on the odd occassion coming out of sleep!) but the funny thing is compared to Leopard it's blazing fast which is a great feeling for "old" hardware.

I use it for .Net development (my job) with SQL Server and MySQL and it performs brilliantly. Credit where it's due MS has made good this time with Windows 7. I'm not sure I need any official support.

[soup4you2]

"Mac Pro (Mid 2006, Intel Xeon Dual-core 2.66GHz or 3GHz)"

Why are they not supporting this? I know this model is their bastard child but I have Win 7 x64 running on it. and have no issues other than apple's HFS driver.

[AidenShaw]

After 3 months of daily use it was becoming slow to load even the 'explorer'.

I wonder if your system guys (or anyone on your team) tried the Windows 7 "Resource Monitor". ("Task Manager" -> "Performance" -> "Resource Monitor")

It can give a lot of insight into what the system is doing, which tasks are chewing CPU, where memory is, how the network and disks are being used...

http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/windows-7-resource-monitor-bigger-better-and-uncut.htm

http://www.techsupportalert.com/files/images/rm_overview_1.jpg http://www.techsupportalert.com/files/images/rm_cpu_1.jpg

There's also the excellent "Procmon" utility at sysinternals (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/default.aspx) which provides a realtime trace of system call activity (files/registry/...) - although it's harder to understand due to the sheer volume of data it presents.

[thestaton]

hmmm both my iMac & MBP are on the list, yet they are both running windows 7 great.

[Jason Beck]

I'm not bashing Windows here, but I have seen this problem occur on systems since 98 even. Slowdowns for no apparent reason after like 6 months of usage. Like a general 30% redux in system efficiency. Now, I havn't used Windows 7 so I can't even comment on it. The problems in the past were due to a variety, well a plethora of different things from memory leaks in programs to TSR programs being bitchy.
The only computer I have ever seen to just work, and keep working, is my mac. I have only been a user of macs for about 2 months now and honest to god I won't go back. After 2 months I have noticed no problems or overt cpu / memory usage in my operating system, OSX (not Snow Leopard). Windows 7 though is getting rave reviews so that is awesome.
As far as your problem with the system slowdown, that is intriguing. I wonder what could be causing it!

[iSamurai]

okay, my computer is supported, but i think not supporting earlier computers is kinda like censoring windows. either way you don't get to use the "highly acclaimed" windows 7 (for once i think this windows will actually work properly), or make you buy new apple hardware. either way apple wins. not good.

[arkmannj]

You know, I qualify to get Win 7 Pro for $29.99 (Education, win741.com)
and i'm staring at the option for 32bit or 64bit saying to myself, Dang I'm glad Apple had the brains to just package it all on one disk. I'd think Microsoft could atleast have made one stall disk and when the installer starts it could check if someone's machine meets the requirements for 64bit THEN pop up a message and say "Hey your machine can handle 64bit, would you like to install that or 32bit?" personally I'm growing very appreciative of how Apple is handeling the transition to 64bit (With the exception of cutting off some machines that technically should be able to run 64bit without any troubles)

P.S. does anyone know what the best hard drive is that I could pop into my MacBook Pro 2007
MacBookPro 3,1 2.4GHZ ? I'm running out of space.

[nilk]

But I've been using Windows 7 on my MacPro in BootCamp for months. How is it not compatible? :confused:

I think this is a question of "official support" not whether it will work or not. Meaning if you have problems on unsupported hardware, they aren't going to help you. Not sure why they do this, maybe to reduce their QA costs or give people reasons to buy newer machines? I really hope they don't stop you from trying to use boot camp on unsupported hardware (though I'd imagine it would be trivial to work around).

This is just typical Apple I guess. Why didn't they have four finger touch on older multi-touch (until Snow Leopard)? Why doesn't the 1st gen iPhone not have MMS (there are ways to enable it on a jailbroken phone)? I think their reasons for these kinds of decisions are not technical and mostly marketing.

[TheAshMan]

Lazy. Apple should have had this today, on day one.

Kind of annoying especially considering my 13" Macbook Pro's audio + webcam don't work properly in ANY Windows at the moment (XP, Vista, or 7) without hacked drivers.
Windows 7 beta has been publicly available since January and Apple has a working relationship with Microsoft for Office etc. There is no excuse. The also sell the fact that you can run Windows on the Mac. This is inexcusable not to have drivers ready on the release date. This means I (and many others) have to wait months before installing Win 7 on my Mac which I paid a lot of money for. Frustrating. I only want it for games and some occasional applications, but I still need it now. Please don't advise me of workarounds and how to do it, I know that and have done it at work with lab machines, but that is not the point. The point is when are the real supported bits available and they are not.

[CQd44]

I wonder if your system guys (or anyone on your team) tried the Windows 7 "Resource Monitor". ("Task Manager" -> "Performance" -> "Resource Monitor")

It can give a lot of insight into what the system is doing, which tasks are chewing CPU, where memory is, how the network and disks are being used...

http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/windows-7-resource-monitor-bigger-better-and-uncut.htm

http://www.techsupportalert.com/files/images/rm_overview_1.jpg http://www.techsupportalert.com/files/images/rm_cpu_1.jpg

There's also the excellent "Procmon" utility at sysinternals (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/default.aspx) which provides a realtime trace of system call activity (files/registry/...) - although it's harder to understand due to the sheer volume of data it presents.

I just tried this and noticed firefox has 29 threads going on at once. That's... a lot.

[Eidorian]

I just tried this and noticed firefox has 29 threads going on at once. That's... a lot.Computer Management and Resource Analysis are two fields that Vista and 7 really expanded on compared to XP.

There are a few features I really wish Activity Monitor had that Resource Monitor does.

[twoodcc]

wow. i have 2 computers on that wish. i don't understand why though

[Eidorian]

Bye, bye from AMD on support for DirectX 9 (http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16168/34/) cards.

[Lex L.]

What I would like to see is a firmware update offering UEFI 2.0+ compatibility for all 2007 and later Macs to eliminate the need for BIOS emulation altogether.

Exactly what I'm hoping for! Get rid of this 'BIOS-compatibility-mode', add a slick (chameleon-like) bootloader, and finally make good use of the possibilities that EFI/UEFI offers.

It's probably wishfull thinking on my part. But it would explain excluding several 'older' machines from the bootcamp update, and apple needing more time to develop drivers.

Let's hope for this...

[diamond.g]

Computer Management and Resource Analysis are two fields that Vista and 7 really expanded on compared to XP.

There are a few features I really wish Activity Monitor had that Resource Monitor does.

I agree in that front. Although doesn't Inspect process kind of give us nearly similar information?

[lPHONE]

Don't worry, Apple will find many more ways to artificially diminish the value of your Mac over time.


I found out the hard way.

[FanboyE]

nice! Im still deciding if I want to get windows 7 for my mac yet.

[Kristenn]

complete bull... Windows 7 runs great on my late 2006 macbook pro..installed no problem... only thing odd is my apple wireless keyboard disconnects frequently when not typing... but I can live with it... I have been to lazy to search for a solution

Just because Apple doesn't support it doesn't mean it wont work.

[tipman2000]

hey, a comment back there got me thinking, does anyone around here feel that computers aren't really getting that much faster, its just that when you get a new one, its really fast, as many of you know. overtime they seem to get slower. that could be a mental thing where you just get used to the speed, but then i noticed that my 2002 iMac g4 that just got wiped clean was booting FASTER than my 3 month old macbook alu! it also opens apps (older ones, but still newer than the age of the hardware, the macbook is running stock) at around the same speed. were talking 700 mhz 256 kb VS 2000 mhz 3 mb processors not to mention all the other specs! i dunno, just a thought.
oh, and the imac listed in my tag is not the one im talkin about.

[inkhead]

By small company you mean Apple with it's 19,000+ US employees? The largest tax payer in silicon valley? And realize Google and MS, and a bunch of companies are here, and Apple is much larger here than Google or MS, in terms of revenue shared with Santa Clara County.

Apple is HUGE, I didn't even add the other 15,000+ employees overseas.

Wow, you are spoiled. You expect a small company to consistently update their OS, their computers' hardware, work on a tablet, update the Apple TV, perfect the iPhone OS, and immediately support a competitor's OS when it's not even an emergency to do so? Is it that much of a pain to wait no more than two months for an update to an OS that you will barely use?

If you ever heard the stories about how hard Jobs pushes his workers, you wouldn't say something so naive.

[Lex L.]

The end of this year is coming close. Did apple itself make this promise, or was it just a rumor?

[Bevz]

The end of this year is coming close. Did apple itself make this promise, or was it just a rumor?

I was just thinking this myself today! Where is the official windows 7 boot camp support??

[Mr. Wonderful]

hey, a comment back there got me thinking, does anyone around here feel that computers aren't really getting that much faster, its just that when you get a new one, its really fast, as many of you know. overtime they seem to get slower. that could be a mental thing where you just get used to the speed, but then i noticed that my 2002 iMac g4 that just got wiped clean was booting FASTER than my 3 month old macbook alu! it also opens apps (older ones, but still newer than the age of the hardware, the macbook is running stock) at around the same speed. were talking 700 mhz 256 kb VS 2000 mhz 3 mb processors not to mention all the other specs! i dunno, just a thought.
oh, and the imac listed in my tag is not the one im talkin about.

You just need to do a fresh install. This is more of a problem on Windows, (though it started getting better with Vista), but as you install stuff and uninstall stuff, your system gets a bit gunked up. Not to mention how full your harddrive is makes a difference, etc. Beyond that, the biggest thing is that the software tends to get more resource intensive.

[rhinocom]

Hi all,

How can I check which version of Boot Camp I am running now? I am running Snow Leopard on two MacBook Pros.

Looking forward to that official release of Boot Camp for Win7. Will that be Boot Camp version 3.0?

Thanks!

[AidenShaw]

You just need to do a fresh install. This is more of a problem on Windows, (though it started getting better with Vista), but as you install stuff and uninstall stuff, your system gets a bit gunked up. Not to mention how full your harddrive is makes a difference, etc. Beyond that, the biggest thing is that the software tends to get more resource intensive.

Another big part of the issue is that many applications run stuff in the background, so that as you add apps you get more and more processes running (and chewing up memory and CPU). Starting those background tasks when you boot and log in takes extra time too.

For example, every icon in the system tray on Windows represents a process running on the system - if you have lots of icons there, you probably have a lot of garbage running.

Many of those are unnecessary, and can be turned off or disabled with no change in the way the app works.

[Eidorian]

Hi all,

How can I check which version of Boot Camp I am running now? I am running Snow Leopard on two MacBook Pros.

Looking forward to that official release of Boot Camp for Win7. Will that be Boot Camp version 3.0?

Thanks!Snow Leopard comes with the Boot Camp 3.0 driver set. I've been using those sucessfully in 32 and 64-bit Windows 7.

[Terminal.app]

I have Windows 7 x64 running acceptably within VMWare Fusion 3 at the moment, but it's with tasks like virtualization that one really hopes and prays for a MBP quad-core option.

[Bevz]

Snow Leopard comes with the Boot Camp 3.0 driver set. I've been using those sucessfully in 32 and 64-bit Windows 7.

Actually I've just tried to install 64bit version of windows 7 on boot camp 3, you're right, it works just fine without official support ;)

[AidenShaw]

Snow Leopard comes with the Boot Camp 3.0 driver set. I've been using those sucessfully in 32 and 64-bit Windows 7.

Actually I've just tried to install 64bit version of windows 7 on boot camp 3, you're right, it works just fine without official support ;)

I've found that most Vista drivers are fine in Win7 x64 and x86. Sometimes Win7 drivers have more features (like WDDM 1.1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Display_Driver_Model#WDDM_1.1)), but they'll run fine.

[cathul]

Whenever i start up my Windows 7 installation in Bootcamp on my early 2009 iMac the soundcard puts out a sinus wave at full volume.
Don't have this in OSX, but cannot find any hints if it's the driver or something. Don't have this sinus wave if i boot up with a headphone attached to the iMac, but as soon as i put out the plug i get this sinus wave.

And believe me, this sinus wave really hurts my ears. :(

[Bubba Satori]

Whenever i start up my Windows 7 installation in Bootcamp on my early 2009 iMac the soundcard puts out a sinus wave at full volume.
Don't have this in OSX, but cannot find any hints if it's the driver or something. Don't have this sinus wave if i boot up with a headphone attached to the iMac, but as soon as i put out the plug i get this sinus wave.

And believe me, this sinus wave really hurts my ears. :(

Bet it's tough on your nose, too. :D
Sounds like you need some kleenex.

[RaZaK]

You'd think a touchpad driver wouldn't kill them and its not like nobody heard of Windows 7 until today. I guess I'll stick with Vista. I'd be happier with XP except I need IIS7 for development.

I'm not sure what problems you may or may not be experiencing. I'm running Windows 2008 R2 64-bit (essentially the server version of Win7), and I'm able to do most, if not all of the same gestures on my touchpad that I can in Mac OS X.

:confused:

[jon08]

So, any news on this "Official Boot Camp Support"?? It's almost the end of the year.......

[cathul]

Bet it's tough on your nose, too. :D
Sounds like you need some kleenex.

Ok ok, it's called sine wave. Sorry, sometimes my english sucks sometimes (2nd language, native german). It's really strange, my iMac doesn't have this behavior (the _sine_ wave during startup of windows 7 or unplugging the headphone after windows 7 has started) with OSX, so it might be a driver issue.
Will try to deinstall the driver sometime within the next days just for testing purposes.

[satcomer]

I am just waiting for Windows 7 to use my external FireWire iSight driver.

[red42]

with bootcamp i get a nasty white screen for a good 40 seconds. Not good, anyone else get that? I've removed bootcamp because startup times matter!

[Lex L.]

Snow Leopard comes with the Boot Camp 3.0 driver set. I've been using those sucessfully in 32 and 64-bit Windows 7.

So how can I get bootcamp 3.0 if I don't have SL?

[flopticalcube]

So how can I get bootcamp 3.0 if I don't have SL?
Unfortunately you can't, at least not legally. Then again, you don't have to install SL. Just use the drivers from the disk. $29 for Windows drivers. :D

[Starship77]

So, any news on this "Official Boot Camp Support"?? It's almost the end of the year.......

Yeah, it's Dec 27 now... Where is the "Official Support"?:confused:

I give them 4 days! :D

[batchtaster]

with bootcamp i get a nasty white screen for a good 40 seconds. Not good, anyone else get that? I've removed bootcamp because startup times matter!

Well, it is a cost-benefit equation. Obviously, waiting 40 seconds matters more to you than running Windows.

[red42]

Well, it is a cost-benefit equation. Obviously, waiting 40 seconds matters more to you than running Windows.

Its not how the computer is supposed to perform, so why should I put up with it? Windows 7 still doesn't run right on the mini when compared to a conventional PC anyway.

I've modded the mini with a fast SSD and 5 gigs of RAM as I want something small silent and very nippy.

[macEfan]

I hope one day BootCamp will support Windows Server Enterprise 2008....I've been wanting to install that for a while to manage windows clients. Oh well... can always use PC for that I guess.

[netdog]

4 days left on this prediction according to the subject.

[Concorde Rules]

Bootcamp 3 supported Windows 7 x64 out of the box for me.

[extrajoe]

Looks like there's just a few days left on that "Official Support" statement. Seems unlikely that they'd wait this long just to roll out an update for boot camp this late in the year.

I have a late 2008 MacBook Pro running Snow Leopard with a boot camp for XP. Would I have any problems wiping out my XP partition and installing Windows 7 x64 on the current version of Boot Camp? Are there any suspected reasons to wait for official support?

[Lex L.]

Just read this (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2260832&start=0&tstart=0) post from Btdk34 on the apple discusion forums, it says:

"To all that are interested, I just called apple technical support and they said Boot Camp will support Windows 7 sometime in the beginning of next year. They also said to call back next week for more information, and I will let you know what I find out."

[batchtaster]

Its not how the computer is supposed to perform, so why should I put up with it?

Because the alternative is hose the whole lot and don't use it at all. It's a simple choice of options.

If your car takes 40 seconds to warm up before you can drive it, will you refuse to drive at all and instead walk? Or push the car off a cliff? Or will you wait the 40 seconds, until the issue is fixed?

It's called a Work Around. In the world of, well, everything, when something isn't working 100%, you try to at least keep things working the best you can, to maintain business-as-usual as much as you can. That may mean using a slightly different workflow or method of operation (eg: making only right-turns), or applying a temporary fix (eg: sticky tape).

THEN when a permanent fix is available, you apply it and wash your hands of the issue entirely.

Sometimes the Work Around is to do nothing eg: it's working, but slightly degraded in experience (speed, quietness, comfort, cooling/heating ability). Sometimes you have a choice of Work Around: wait the 40 seconds, or get angry and throw the whole thing in the garbage.

I would just wait the 40 seconds. You chose to shove the car off a cliff. Good for you. Now you can stop complaining about it, because you've resolved the issue.

[someone28624]

I don't get it- Windows 7 works beautifully under Boot Camp for me.

[Peace]

I don't get it- Windows 7 works beautifully under Boot Camp for me.


You don't have a 27" iMac.;)

[diamond.g]

You don't have a 27" iMac.;)

What about boot camp doesn't work on the 27" iMac?

[Gasu E.]

For what it's worth, I have been unable to install W7 under bootcamp on my 27 inch iMac. It just hangs after one of the restarts during the install.

[diamond.g]

For what it's worth, I have been unable to install W7 under bootcamp on my 27 inch iMac. It just hangs after one of the restarts during the install.

Has anyone seen if they could just partition out some space formatted at FAT32 to see if W7 will load over EFI (it should)?

[AidenShaw]

Has anyone seen if they could just partition out some space formatted at FAT32 to see if W7 will load over EFI (it should)?

?

Vista and Windows 7 require NTFS partitions.

[xlii]

I don't get it- Windows 7 works beautifully under Boot Camp for me.

I have a new mbp and a 3 year old mbp. Win 7 installs just great on the new mbp. It doesn't even install on the 3 year old mbp. It gives me this press 1 or 2 for the cd message...

[arkmannj]

I have a new mbp and a 3 year old mbp. Win 7 installs just great on the new mbp. It doesn't even install on the 3 year old mbp. It gives me this press 1 or 2 for the cd message...

Is it the 64bit version of Windows 7 ? that's the message you get if you try to install the 64bit version on a machine that won't support it.

[xlii]

Is it the 64bit version of Windows 7 ? that's the message you get if you try to install the 64bit version on a machine that won't support it.

Yes, it is the 64 bit win 7. There is another thread on macrumors that talks about that error message and gives a work around on how to get it to boot. I read through it and decided to wait. I don't really need win 7. I have the win7 rc that will expire in June that I've been fooling around with.

The only thing that I would use win 7 for is to use it to use blu ray on a mac (need an external blu ray drive too).

[Eidorian]

Is it the 64bit version of Windows 7 ? that's the message you get if you try to install the 64bit version on a machine that won't support it.Windows 7 is trying to use the EFI booter and that doesn't work on certain older Mac models.

The DVD image has to be rebuilt. You have to use oscdimg and the instructions vary. I already had an ISO on my drive so I didn't have to copy the contents to make a new image.

[Peace]

What about boot camp doesn't work on the 27" iMac?

Windows 7 defaults to the displayport as the video so you cant finish the install without doing some tinkering.

[AidenShaw]

I have a new mbp and a 3 year old mbp. Win 7 installs just great on the new mbp. It doesn't even install on the 3 year old mbp. It gives me this press 1 or 2 for the cd message...

You can create a bootable USB thumb drive version of the Windows 7 installation disk very easily.

Details at:

http://blogs.technet.com/jeffa36/archive/2009/04/22/windows-7-setting-up-a-usb-bootable-device-for-installs.aspx
or
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd535816.aspx

There's a chance that whatever's confusing your installation about the DVD drive won't happen with a USB drive.

It's simpler to manually select "boot from USB key" in the boot options. If you have it automatically boot from the thumb drive, it will loop. Watch the installation, and when it does the first reboot remove the USB drive while it's in the POST code. (If you miss that, and find it at the installation screen - pull the thumb drive and reboot, and it will continue with the disk-based installation.)

[Eidorian]

You can create a bootable USB thumb drive version of the Windows 7 installation disk very easily.

Details at:

http://blogs.technet.com/jeffa36/archive/2009/04/22/windows-7-setting-up-a-usb-bootable-device-for-installs.aspx
or
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd535816.aspx

There's a chance that whatever's confusing your installation about the DVD drive won't happen with a USB drive.

It's simpler to manually select "boot from USB key" in the boot options. If you have it automatically boot from the thumb drive, it will loop. Watch the installation, and when it does the first reboot remove the USB drive while it's in the POST code. (If you miss that, and find it at the installation screen - pull the thumb drive and reboot, and it will continue with the disk-based installation.)I tried making a USB bootable drive with my Windows 7 disc but it didn't work the first time around. It never showed up in the boot loader. I'll have to try it again with the new utility.

I have plenty of DVD+RWs so using oscdimg wasn't too much trouble to make a new disc.

[AidenShaw]

I tried making a USB bootable drive with my Windows 7 disc but it didn't work the first time around. It never showed up in the boot loader. I'll have to try it again with the new utility.

Just a guess, but did you set the partition to be "active"? I've seen BIOS and other boot code that ignores non-active partitions, since by traditional definition they are not bootable.

[Eidorian]

Just a guess, but did you set the partition to be "active"? I've seen BIOS and other boot code that ignores non-active partitions, since by traditional definition they are not bootable.I did set it to active using diskpart. :p