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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple: Official Boot Camp Support for Windows 7 Coming Later This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But I've been using Windows 7 on my MacPro in BootCamp for months. How is it not compatible?
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
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
Conventional Wisdom Says????
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)?
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)?
What support?
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
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3777 said:
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
Looks like someone forgot the unsupported info for MacBook.
I am guessing only Santa Rosa boards and newer are supported.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Where have you been the last year?
"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.
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?
J
jmadlena
Guest
Windows 7 RC runs just fine on my iMac Core Duo. No good can come from Apple doing this.
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.
It is.. You just haven't paid Apple any money lately.
What small company are you talking about? We're talking about Apple on this forum.str1f3 said:
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.
Sad but true.
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.
Applecare finally replaced the logic board after 3 trips to the apple store.
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.
Applecare finally replaced the logic board after 3 trips to the apple store.
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?
A small company ?
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.
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.) 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.