Snow Leopard's Boot Camp Includes HFS+ Windows Drivers

[MacRumors]

MacRumors has learned that Apple's Boot Camp utility under Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard will include Windows HFS+ drivers, which will allow Windows installations to read Mac OS X HFS+ formatted partitions.

Boot Camp is Apple's software package that allows customers to boot Microsoft's Windows operating system on their Intel Macs. The Boot Camp package includes the necessary Windows drivers to support each Mac's hardware. Windows, however, does not routinely recognize Mac formatted hard drives and is unable to read or write to them without special drivers. The newest version of Snow Leopard's Boot Camp appears to include these special drivers to allow read access to Mac data even under Windows.

The move should make it easier for customers to switch between Windows and Mac operating systems by allowing files to be more easily transfered back and forth. Up until now, customers would have to rely on third-party utilities such as Mediafour's MacDrive to accomplish the same task.

Article Link: Snow Leopard's Boot Camp Includes HFS+ Windows Drivers

[Boneoh]

Cool! Another small piece of the puzzle to make things easier.

[Biolizard]

Wonder whether this will also go on general release on t'Internet? Maybe we can finally get rid of FAT32 as the lowest common denominator. Might also encourage M$ to be more open on NTFS, or risk losing out to the competition.

[hiimamac]

Originally Posted by Boneoh

Cool! Another small piece of the puzzle to make things easier.

You know how macs can now run windows, what would happen if microsoft went out if their way to create an os that ran apple OS X.

Just saying. What allows Apple to do this but not the other way around?

[Biolizard]

Originally Posted by hiimamac

You know how macs can now run windows, what would happen if microsoft went out if their way to create an os that ran apple OS X.

Just saying. What allows Apple to do this but not the other way around?

The OS X license agreement. Only 'Macs' may run OS X client, so it's not allowed to virtualise it. OS X Server doesn't have the restriction, but why would MS offer it when their product is dominant?

[deconstruct60]

Originally Posted by Biolizard

The OS X license agreement. Only 'Macs' may run OS X client, so it's not allowed to virtualise it. OS X Server doesn't have the restriction, but why would MS offer it when their product is dominant?

You could ask the question way they certify Linux , Solaris , and anyone else who wants to submit to the their certification program (http://www.windowsservercatalog.com/svvp.aspx) . There is a whole new race as to whose hypervisor sits on the bottom ( VMWare , Xen (or derivation there of) , Hyper-V ). Whose ever hypervisor sits on the bottom gets to sell VM management software ( with deeper hooks.) The generic capabilitiy hypervisors are all going to be practically free.

As long as they are going to be in the business of providing a virtual machine. That machine should support a variety of OS ... otherwise it probably sucks in some way. ( things like supporting linux on Hyper-V and Bootcamp on Apple hardware open more doors than it closes. )



There is no disadvantage to Micosoft if they sell more stuff.

For Apple. If you have to buy $400+ version of the OS to run on a VM... just more money in their pockets. The catch is that none of the hypervisors run without kludges. VMWare Fusion works though (makes it transparent that it is running on apple labeled hardware since it is an OS X app.)

[Tsurisuto]

Now this to me is an amazing feature. That's one thing that I disliked about using a Mac partitioned Hard Drive on a Windows installation.

But what about ZFS?

[Santa Rosa]

Hope this is included in the final shipped version of Snow Leopard. Have been using HFS Explorer to tide me over. It does the job but its not really the best of solutions.

Didn't want to go down the MacDrive route because it wasn't free and wasn't sure how much I would use it.

[revs]

read-only would be nice, otherwise there is the risk of virii getting to the Mac files

[kastenbrust]

Originally Posted by revs

read-only would be nice, otherwise there is the risk of virii getting to the Mac files

Are you insane? Macs cant get Windows viruses! A windows virus simply wont work on a Mac because they're in the DLL or .EXE format which Mac's cant, and will never be able to run

Im sorry but this warrants a facepalm.

[soup4you2]

Originally Posted by kastenbrust

Are you insane? Macs cant get Windows viruses! A windows virus simply wont work on a Mac because they're in the DLL or .EXE format which Mac's cant, and will never be able to run

Im sorry but this warrants a facepalm.

I believe he was talking about being booted into the windows side, in which case yes he will be reading .DLL, .EXE or whatever the hell else he downloads. And depending upon the virus it could wipe out the Mac partitions if it had RW attributes.

[kastenbrust]

Originally Posted by soup4you2

I believe he was talking about being booted into the windows side, in which case yes he will be reading .DLL, .EXE or whatever the hell else he downloads. And depending upon the virus it could wipe out the Mac partitions if it had RW attributes.

A virus could possibly read your personal files, but in order to read any system files, or modify any personal files or system files due to the Unix setup of OS X it would require your OS X admin password.

Its common sense, when you have two Mac users setup on one computer, one user cant simply modify the other users files, its simply not possible without passwords, this isnt Windoze

[mzeb]

Originally Posted by kastenbrust

Are you insane? Macs cant get Windows viruses! A windows virus simply wont work on a Mac because they're in the DLL or .EXE format which Mac's cant, and will never be able to run

Im sorry but this warrants a facepalm.

Remember, windows executables are recognized by mac os x as such. Mac OS X can't run windows binaries now, but who knows what they're planning... think wine-ish stuff written by apple. Could be interesting.

[tk421]

Originally Posted by Virtualball

Ya, this seems like a very easy way to have mac files become infected with virii...

Originally Posted by revs

read-only would be nice, otherwise there is the risk of virii getting to the Mac files

Originally Posted by Tastic Bycrom

OK, seriously, just how many of you think that Windows is a cesspool of virii?...

What the hell is "virii?" The Oxford American Dictionary says "viruses." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus#Virus)

[Tastic Bycrom]

Originally Posted by tk421

What the hell is "virii?" The Oxford American Dictionary says "viruses." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus#Virus)

Heh... fair enough.

[*LTD*]

Originally Posted by Tastic Bycrom

Heh... fair enough.

Yeah, I was about to mention the correction myself, but I didn't want to be "THAT guy" . . .

[Macminiintel]

Originally Posted by revs

read-only would be nice, otherwise there is the risk of virii getting to the Mac files

A windows virus isn't going to do anything to Mac OS X, its meant for a totally different kernel

[rwilliams]

This is good news. Now if Apple can be bothered to include better fan support (i.e. turning them on AT ALL) in Boot Camp in the newer MacBook/MBPs, I'll be a happy customer.

[heffeque]

Originally Posted by Macminiintel

A windows virus isn't going to do anything to Mac OS X, its meant for a totally different kernel

But while in Windows, a virus CAN erase files in any read/write drive. *D'uuuuh*

[Bubba Satori]

Originally Posted by revs

read-only would be nice, otherwise there is the risk of virii getting to the Mac files

Yeah, right.


http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3346
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01...trojan_attack/
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=212700677
http://macblips.dailyradar.com/story...s_utilities_1/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10110852-83.html

[andiwm2003]

Originally Posted by revs

read-only would be nice, otherwise there is the risk of virii getting to the Mac files

what are virii? viruses?

anyway, good point because this could compromise data safety.

[RichardI]

I assume that the new version of Boot Camp would allow installations of Windows 7 or Vista?
For me personally, I would only need to see the Mac HD and be able to copy data files from it only. No programs. That sounds really good to me.

Rich

[guzhogi]

Sounds useful. I'd prefer Read AND Write support. Viruses can wipe out your system, but people really should use common sense & a good anti-virus. Plus, even though Macs might not be able to run Windows viruses, Macs can still pass them on to other computers via e-mail or whatever. Some people seem to forget that. Just my 2¢

[arkmannj]

Originally Posted by RichardI

I assume that the new version of Boot Camp would allow installations of Windows 7 or Vista?
For me personally, I would only need to see the Mac HD and be able to copy data files from it only. No programs. That sounds really good to me.

Rich

I just thought of something. It would be a bit cumbersome, but if they gave windows Read Only access to HFS+, and with OS X already having Read-Only Access to NTFS you could essentially work on both sides just fine without anything spilling into either partition from the other O.S.

You'd end up with copies of files you use on both getting duplicated since you'd be saving each to it's own partition but it would still 'work'

As a side note, I must be outta the loop, I walked past a 32GB flash drive last night (at Costco) for about $25.00 I really think that is a fantastic option for keeping files accessible in both systems. Also, if you have an Airport Extreme/Time Capsule at home you can access files from both systems on there.

[pr5owner]

Originally Posted by revs

read-only would be nice, otherwise there is the risk of virii getting to the Mac files

you mac users really surf that many questionable/porn sites that your scared of viruses?

heres an idea, stop being an idiot when it comes to the internet.