Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

greatdevourer

macrumors 68000
Aug 5, 2005
1,996
0
Saw it just now. The only problem with it is that it doesn't do MCE ;) However, if it has hardware graphics and working trackpads...
 

0098386

Suspended
Jan 18, 2005
21,574
2,908
... So that's official and that? Sounds pretty great. Maybe that's why Apple had that big ol' argument with OSX86, they had their own product in the pipeline.
 

greatdevourer

macrumors 68000
Aug 5, 2005
1,996
0
I wonder what happens to onmac.net's graphics-driver hunt? Does it get pulled down? Or does one lucky Apple employee make $1500 :p
 

cr2sh

macrumors 68030
May 28, 2002
2,554
3
downtown
Has anyone used both the $13,000 solution and the Apple solution? How different are the two techniques?
 

GimmeSlack12

macrumors 603
Apr 29, 2005
5,403
12
San Francisco
The 2 techniques are very different. Although they accomplish the same thing. Dual Boot.

The Apple method has working drivers, and a simple process as is expected by Apple.

Apple's method is the way to go.
 

p0intblank

macrumors 68030
Sep 20, 2005
2,548
2
New Jersey
cr2sh said:
Has anyone used both the $13,000 solution and the Apple solution? How different are the two techniques?

I haven't used either, but I do know for a fact that Apple's solution is MUCH more user-friendly. There are no hacks needed or anything. Apple practically gives you software to boot into XP. You'll still have acquire an XP Service Pack 2 disc, though.
 

dmw007

macrumors G4
May 26, 2005
10,635
0
Working for MI-6
GimmeSlack12 said:
The 2 techniques are very different. Although they accomplish the same thing. Dual Boot.

The Apple method has working drivers, and a simple process as is expected by Apple.

Apple's method is the way to go.

Yep, I would stick with Apple's way of doing things. Still can not get over how cool this announcement is (concerning Boot Camp). That said, all of my Macs are PowerPC :eek: ..... for now. ;) :)
 

cr2sh

macrumors 68030
May 28, 2002
2,554
3
downtown
p0intblank said:
I haven't used either, but I do know for a fact that Apple's solution is MUCH more user-friendly.

What made me wonder was Apple's site saying you needed a blank cd. It seemed odd, but similar to the other methods blank cd method.

"Apple's is easier", is not the difference I'm looking for. Do the two techniques achieve the same thing, the same way? I beieve the $13,000 solution had you modify a config file.. or something, burn the special windows install disc and go on.

Of course Apple's method is easier... of course it has more drivers... but is there a chance that Apple took that other setup technique and just simplified the process... or is this a whole new work around?
 

GimmeSlack12

macrumors 603
Apr 29, 2005
5,403
12
San Francisco
cr2sh said:
Of course Apple's method is easier... of course it has more drivers... but is there a chance that Apple took that other setup technique and just simplified the process... or is this a whole new work around?
Both ways achieve Dual Booting. I don't know what the difference is concerning how it is done. Apple's way requires you do an install. The $13k way requires a whole lot of other crap.
All that matters is that it works.
 

cr2sh

macrumors 68030
May 28, 2002
2,554
3
downtown
GimmeSlack12 said:
All that matters is that it works.

That might be all that matters... but that's not what I asked.

:)

The title of this thread is "Apple's Solution to booting Windows." and my question is... how is this solution different?
 

plinden

macrumors 601
Apr 8, 2004
4,029
142
cr2sh said:
That might be all that matters... but that's not what I asked.

:)

The title of this thread is "Apple's Solution to booting Windows." and my question is... how is this solution different?
Well, I haven't done either, but I read over the instructions.

I see that Apple's solution provides a firmware update to support BIOS, a way of partitioning the Mac HDD without requiring an OS X reinstall, all the necessary drivers, and you use the retail XP disk and don't need to burn your own copy.

The "blank CD" mentioned in the instructions is for the drivers.

Booting doesn't appear to be as elegant with the Apple solution. You have to press the Option key on start up, and you get two HDD icons side-by-side with "Windows XP" or "Mac OS X" under them. I guess Apple didn't want to have to pay to use the MS Windows graphics.

What I want to know is, after partitioning with Boot Camp (it won't work if the Mac OS X disk is already partitioned), can you repartition the XP partition into separate FAT32 (for shared data) and NTFS (for the XP install) and still be able to install XP?
 

rumbletum

macrumors regular
Apr 2, 2005
201
6
Wolverhampton, UK
I've got a licensed version of XP Pro (from Virtual PC), does anyone know if there's anyway I can use this with Boot Camp, as it's not a single disc version of XP, and doesn't include SP2. I don't really want to fork out for another version of XP, when I have a currently unused version here.
 

lamina

macrumors 68000
Mar 9, 2006
1,756
67
Niagara
Works PERFECTLY. I did it on a 20" iMac today. Unbelievably fast in Windows, ans Google Earth looks absolutely awesome.

Go Apple.
 

dudemac

macrumors member
Feb 4, 2004
80
0
GimmeSlack12 said:
Both ways achieve Dual Booting. I don't know what the difference is concerning how it is done. Apple's way requires you do an install. The $13k way requires a whole lot of other crap.
All that matters is that it works.

Apples way actually uses the modified firmware to support booting legacy "BIOS" OS's. This should make it much easier for Linux to be installed too. And it should be noted while it says it needs winxp sp2. I would bet that win2k would also install. I will be trying tonight. :) I have winxp but don't want the overhead to just run one app. (photoshop)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.