Will (bootcamp) soon cost $?

[bballguy998]

Apple's website says you can download a public beta now. As it gets improved, is it likely that apple will charge for this, or will it stay free?

The MBP's are around a $1000 too much for me to spend, so Im planning on waiting for the macbook(intel ibook, not sure which ones correct now). Oh, and does anyone know if the macbook will cost more or less than the ibook does now? Im dreading a huge price increase...

[WildCowboy]

Originally Posted by bballguy998

Apple's website says you can download a public beta now. As it gets improved, is it likely that apple will charge for this, or will it stay free?

Apple says that this will be part of the next OS X 10.5 release, so it won't be free, per se, but it will be bundled with the operating system and will likely cease to be offered as a standalone "product."

[someguy]

I'm sorry, what exactly is it?
I'm assuming (given the category of this thread) the OP is referring to Mac OS X (which, btw, already costs money - so wtf?).

[WildCowboy]

Originally Posted by someguy

I'm sorry, what exactly is it?
I'm assuming (given the category of this thread) the OP is referring to Mac OS X (which, btw, already costs money - so wtf?).

I assumed he was talking about Boot Camp...don't know what else it could be.

[bballguy998]

yeah, I was refering to boot camp, thanks

[balamw]

Originally Posted by WildCowboy

Apple says that this will be part of the next OS X 10.5 release, so it won't be free, per se, but it will be bundled with the operating system and will likely cease to be offered as a standalone "product."

Actually, as others have pointed out the boot camp page is worded very carfeully so as to imply that this may not be what you finally see in Leopard.

Apple will include technology in the next major release of Mac OS X, Leopard, that lets you install and run the Windows XP operating system on your Mac. Called Boot Camp (for now), you can download a public beta today.

Both bolded sections seek seem awkwardly vague, and it has been suggested that 10.5 may include full virtualization software. What I think would be really cool is if they could make it work so that you could use the same XP install in the virtualizer or boot to it from bare metal.

B

[Le Big Mac]

Originally Posted by balamw

Both bolded sections seek seem awkwardly vague, and it has been suggested that 10.5 may include full virtualization software. What I think would be really cool is if they could make it work so that you could use the same XP install in the virtualizer or boot to it from bare metal.

B

Wouldn't the more desirable to be able to work in a window within OS X to run windows programs, a la Virtual PC?

[balamw]

Originally Posted by Le Big Mac

Wouldn't the more desirable to be able to work in a window within OS X to run windows programs, a la Virtual PC?

Yes, and that's where the virtualizer comes in, but sometimes you just need to run things on bare metal.

B

[swindmill]

Why wouldn't running XP natively be better than running it virtually?

. . . other than the obvious fact that you must reboot when you run it natively

[howesey]

It will run nativly.


Reminds me of Acorn RISCOS computers running Windows.

[mkrishnan]

Originally Posted by balamw

Yes, and that's where the virtualizer comes in, but sometimes you just need to run things on bare metal.

For the gamers and some of the other hard-core apps, I don't think you'd be willing to give up the bandwidth. Plus you have to go to all kinds of tricks and lengths to get good DirectX in a virtualizer, don't you? Since the virtualizer is barred by OS X from doing that much direct talking to the graphics card, I would think that there would essentially need to be a DirectX gateway that provided the appearance of direct access to the card. Otherwise, and even if, I would think graphics performance will not be great.

[balamw]

Originally Posted by mkrishnan

For the gamers and some of the other hard-core apps, I don't think you'd be willing to give up the bandwidth. Plus you have to go to all kinds of tricks and lengths to get good DirectX in a virtualizer, don't you? Since the virtualizer is barred by OS X from doing that much direct talking to the graphics card, I would think that there would essentially need to be a DirectX gateway that provided the appearance of direct access to the card. Otherwise, and even if, I would think graphics performance will not be great.

I agree 100%, which is why I suggested that the ideal virtualizer is one that would allow you to boot to the OS from bare metal when you have to to get that extra performance.

As far as the need for optimization tricks go, I think that this is where Apple may have a huge leg up on others in this arena in that the hardware is known and fairly tightly controlled. You don't need to do this for random configurations, you just need a few heavily optimized drivers.

B