Apple Releases Boot Camp Beta

[backdraft]

Viruses attack Mac OS X via XP?

I wonder if the partitions are protected so Win XP viruses wont damage the OS X partition/data

 

[pjarvi]

This is good news!

If apple releases an SLI or Crossfire system, this will finally let people switch to Mac hardware completely, while only keeping around WinXP for games.

 

[iomar]

wow.. I can't wait to try this... but I am still not sure who is going to really benifit from it. Microsoft or Apple.. what if Microsoft decides not to make Microsoft Office for Mac anymore.. If we can run XP on Mac why should they have a Mac version of Office?

 

[corbin_a2]

Dude, your getting a dell.

 

[bigjohn]

should i be worried that i don't have the SP2 installation disk. i just have XP and it downloads SP2.

1. You’ll need Windows XP Home Edition or Professional, Service Pack 2 installation disc.

 

[shawnce]

I'm curious, why would Michael Dell poop in his pants?. Has apple also announced a significant price decrease for their hardware?.

Apple just gained a huge advantage in the educational hardware market in comparison to Dell. Educational institutions can now buy Apple hardware and run Windows and Mac OS X on it covering their needs and providing alternative exposure for their students.

 

[leftbanke7]

I always love announcements like this because you get to see the newbies come scurring out of the woodwork then scamper back in the next day.

I'm about 95% groovy with this announcement. The other 5% is just the usual "what ifs" that usually come with an announcement of this magnitute (ie: Intel on Macs, Dropping Classic support, etc).

I don't know if this will get me to buy a new Mac anytime soon but I'm betting that the lines at the Apple stores just got a bit longer.

And does anybody else see the coincidence that the day before Apple's target price was reduced almost $20.00 and the next day they release this little doozey?

 

[sonnys]

Mixed feelings

I have mixed feelings about this, but I'll console myself to knowing that Apple doesn't do anything in a vacuum without it fitting into a longer term business strategy.

It doesn't help Apple to create drivers to support all of its unique hardware capabilities on Windows -- Apple's big sales proposition to customers is seamless integration and ease-of-use, so bringing that to the Windows OS platform kills OS X. It also doesn't help Apple to support competing products/technologies in Windows for the same reason stated above -- where, then, is the advantage to having OS X which only runs on Mac hardware?

With Boot Camp, Apple is testing the waters to see how switchers will respond while only providing a half solution to what is a big need among Mac users, which is to run a virtualized Windows OS at full speed within the Mac OS itself to fill in software gaps. If we look at what Apple has done today, its short-term impact will be to make the Mac hardware an attractive purchase option for Windows users who would otherwise be considering a Dell, Toshiba, HP, etc.

However, it is the long-term impacts I'm worrying about. If you can boot into Windows XP or Vista on your Mac in a fast and viable way, why would anyone develop commercial software for Mac OS X? Wouldn't it just be easier, and financially smarter, to develop only on the Windows platform knowing that not only will it run on all Windows-based PCs, but also on the Mac in Windows mode? Where is the incentive to continue developing for Mac OS X when one Windows version will run on everything including Macs?

Apple is rightfully betting that doing this will spur Mac sales, thereby significantly increasing Mac market share. But to those who don't know any better (i.e., the vast majority of consumers), won't they just end up seeing the Mac as another Windows PC? And won't developers do the same in order to maximize development resources and still reach the same audience PLUS Mac users?

Perhaps I'm missing the bigger picture that Apple can see, but this is as much bad news for OS X as it is good news for the Mac's market share. I do see it as a possibility that while the Mac market share may double or triple, some large (and very important) developers may see it as an increase in Windows market share and opt out of OS X development altogether. If a developer such as Adobe were to opt out of OS X development entirely in favor of adding "Mac users: install Windows XP on your Mac to run this software" to the system requirements of every shipping Windows version of its software, there would be no viable OS X software alternative and users would be FORCED to switch to Intel and install Windows in order to run future versions of Adobe software. If Mac users somehow revolt and refuse to upgrade, fine, then Adobe feels the pain of 5% of its user base while to the vast majority of its users it makes no difference. Ultimately, won't Adobe save a lot of money by developing, testing, distributing, and supporting a single platform?

Anyways, just some thoughts and ramblings. I hope Apple has some big surprises in store for Leopard that will blow Vista out of the water to give OS X a real edge -- and I suspect Apple will be doing just that otherwise it wouldn't have made this dual boot option available. I also hope that Boot Camp is a precursor to running a full-speed virtualized version of Windows (with hardware accelerated graphics) within OS X itself. That will give those of us in a production environment a real reason to use it. At the same time, I hope that none of this means less development for Mac OS X.

 

[calculus]

For some reason the saying "Be careful what you wish for, it might come true" comes to mind.

 

[lalcan]

It restarts in whatever you were in before so if XP crashes it will boot straight back into XP.

There goes my conspiracy theory someone tell Apple to change it so it always starts by default in OS X

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I've noticed that a lot of the tech news sites are describing the earlier XP-on-Mac hack as "too complicated" and something "no sane user would attempt" (quoted from Cnet).

But the XP-on-Mac contest was crucial because it demonstrated that there was significant interest in dual-booting. I wouldn't be suprised if Boot Camp was developed months ago just for the heck of it but was only reseased as a product after Apple saw that many people were very interested in dual booting, especially current Winbdows users contemplating a switch.

 

[Barham]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, cause I can't read this entire monster of a thread. Did you all notice that it only works for Windows XP and not Vista? I'm thinking this is definitely a switcher grab idea. My guess is that there will never be Vista support at all. That way, developers will still have reason to write for OS X and Apple can say, "Hey, you'll need new programs for Vista, why not try a Mac instead. OS X kicks ass!"

Brilliant.

 

[cwedl]

cant wait until these start appearing

As long as they don't put stickers on the Macs themselves!!! I would sick!!

 

[mozmac]

Virtualization

I'm gonna add my 8 bits to this board. This is a move in the right direction. Apple now has the only machine that can natively run Mac OS X, Windows XP, Linux, and Unix. No other computer out there can do that.

All you people saying that there is NO reason to install Windows on a Mac are just ignorant. You are like the people that tell me they hate all rap/hip hop songs or all country songs. Then I see that person getting there groove on at a wedding reception to Black Eyed Peas. Windows, with how buggy and flawed it is, has some great things that it brings to the computing world.

I hope that Leopard also supports virtualization. I only need Windows for a few apps; e.g. Outlook........that's pretty much it. Everything has a good counter-part on OS X.

 

[sonnys]

Vista is not a released product.

 

[milo]

Some software developers already don't have an OS X version (5% marketshare). Mac users who install Windows further lower the OS X marketshare (since they can now run Windows software). You really think companies will make an OS X version if OS X-only users are 2% of the market?

Installing XP on a mac doesn't lower the OSX marketshare. Sure, it raises the XP marketshare, since with dual boot you can go over 100%. But as more macs are sold, OSX market share goes UP regardless of what other OS's may be installed.

Not to mention that marketshare numbers are based on sales, nobody has any way of knowing how many OSX users are installing XP. A software vendor is going to see mac market share rising from 5% to 7%, they're likely not going to see any numbers about how many of those are installing XP. As more macs are sold and more people are running OSX (even if some of them are switchers only using it some of the time), there will be more people asking the company to ship an OSX version.

I'm curious, why would Michael Dell poop in his pants?.

Because even if only 1% of potential Dell users decide to spend a little more on a mac and run XP instead of getting a Dell, that's millions in lost sales. Many people want the cheapest and will still go dell. But some will be willing to spend a little bit more if it means they can run another OS (along with apps like iLife).

what if Microsoft decides not to make Microsoft Office for Mac anymore.. If we can run XP on Mac why should they have a Mac version of Office?

We could all just buy peecees. Or run virtual peecee. Since we can get by without it, why haven't they discontinued it already? (hint: because they sell plenty of copies and it makes them a bunch of money)

If you were MS, would you want to discontinue OSX Office, knowing that the direct result would be Apple making the best Office killer they could? Especially with mac hardware on the rise? Would you be willing to take that chance on lost income?

 

[Sean7512]

NNOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

I am NEVER leaving my precious G4 now...I know it is COMPLETELY "Window's Proof" This is one sad day....I knew the intel switch would bring some bad stuff. The whole point of buying a Mac was because it is NOT Windows and there would be no talk of these viruses or spyware. Everyone that I switched over have switched for the same reason as me

Yes, I understand that some people need certain software and such, but this just seems like a bad idea now...Now, Apple is just any ORDINARY computer with an added Operating System that has built in programs to run Windows, yuck!!!

I'm off to hug my G4 eMac, at least it won't get infected

 

[Multimedia]

Windows XP SP2 Network Installer

Yes you can - you need to "streamline" an XP installation disc by effectively combining it with SP2. I forget how to do it exactly, but you need the network SP2 installer (downloadable from Microsoft) - and I expect the instructions for stream lining are there too.

Thank you Dops7107. You the man.

Here's the link to the XP SP2 Network Installer for those who have older copies of Windows XP like me. It's 266 MB.

Does anyone know how to run this update so I wind up with a XP SP2 Install CD or DVD? And is this the latest XP version? Or is there an even newer one?

 

[madmaxmedia]

Is it necessary to have to 'hate' Windows to use a Mac? Can't you just like using Mac better? For some this will be a boon, for others a necessary evil, and for many this will be irrelevant as they won't install it anyways.

But more options is still good. An Apple-supported dual-boot solution will expand the potential market for Mac hardware, and Mac software as well.

Pardon my ignorance, but how is this good? Isn't the whole reason why we're supposed to "hate" windows is because it's a crap OS anyway open to so many viruses and such...how will this affect the mac computing environment??

 

[DJ Bliss]

I hope that Leopard also supports virtualization. I only need Windows for a few apps; e.g. Outlook........that's pretty much it. Everything has a good counter-part on OS X.

Don't forget Spider Solitaire!

 

[mozmac]

My guess is that there will never be Vista support at all. That way, developers will still have reason to write for OS X and Apple can say, "Hey, you'll need new programs for Vista, why not try a Mac instead. OS X kicks ass!"

Brilliant.

That's a really good point. When I first read they weren't supporting Vista, I figured they were staying hush about it until Vista finally crawled out of its cave. However, it could be a big selling point for them. A lot of people will have to get new hardware & software for Vista. So, if they're making the switch already, why not switch to OS X where they can also keep their wonderfully familiar install of Windows XP as well.

 

[milo]

I am NEVER leaving my precious G4 now...I know it is COMPLETELY "Window's Proof"

Because Windows could somehow sneak on your mac? XP elves sneaking in during the night? You honestly don't think you're in control of whether it gets installed on your machine?

 

[Freyqq]

I have mixed feelings about this, but I'll console myself to knowing that Apple doesn't do anything in a vacuum without it fitting into a longer term business strategy.

It doesn't help Apple to create drivers to support all of its unique hardware capabilities on Windows -- Apple's big sales proposition to customers is seamless integration and ease-of-use, so bringing that to the Windows OS platform kills OS X. It also doesn't help Apple to support competing products/technologies in Windows for the same reason stated above -- where, then, is the advantage to having OS X which only runs on Mac hardware?

With Boot Camp, Apple is testing the waters to see how switchers will respond while only providing a half solution to what is a big need among Mac users, which is to run a virtualized Windows OS at full speed within the Mac OS itself to fill in software gaps. If we look at what Apple has done today, its short-term impact will be to make the Mac hardware an attractive purchase option for Windows users who would otherwise be considering a Dell, Toshiba, HP, etc.

However, it is the long-term impacts I'm worrying about. If you can boot into Windows XP or Vista on your Mac in a fast and viable way, why would anyone develop commercial software for Mac OS X? Wouldn't it just be easier, and financially smarter, to develop only on the Windows platform knowing that not only will it run on all Windows-based PCs, but also on the Mac in Windows mode? Where is the incentive to continue developing for Mac OS X when one Windows version will run on everything including Macs?

Apple is rightfully betting that doing this will spur Mac sales, thereby significantly increasing Mac market share. But to those who don't know any better (i.e., the vast majority of consumers), won't they just end up seeing the Mac as another Windows PC? And won't developers do the same in order to maximize development resources and still reach the same audience PLUS Mac users?

Perhaps I'm missing the bigger picture that Apple can see, but this is as much bad news for OS X as it is good news for the Mac's market share. I do see it as a possibility that while the Mac market share may double or triple, some large (and very important) developers may see it as an increase in Windows market share and opt out of OS X development altogether. If a developer such as Adobe were to opt out of OS X development entirely in favor of adding "Mac users: install Windows XP on your Mac to run this software" to the system requirements of every shipping Windows version of its software, there would be no viable OS X software alternative and users would be FORCED to switch to Intel and install Windows in order to run future versions of Adobe software. If Mac users somehow revolt and refuse to upgrade, fine, then Adobe feels the pain of 5% of its user base while to the vast majority of its users it makes no difference. Ultimately, won't Adobe save a lot of money by developing, testing, distributing, and supporting a single platform?

Anyways, just some thoughts and ramblings. I hope Apple has some big surprises in store for Leopard that will blow Vista out of the water to give OS X a real edge -- and I suspect Apple will be doing just that otherwise it wouldn't have made this dual boot option available. I also hope that Boot Camp is a precursor to running a full-speed virtualized version of Windows (with hardware accelerated graphics) within OS X itself. That will give those of us in a production environment a real reason to use it. At the same time, I hope that none of this means less development for Mac OS X.

I think they're hoping to boast marketshare so that eventually it will be a signifiant enough profit to create mac programs. If because of this move, marketshare increases to 10%, program makers will still have incentive to create mac programs. Mac users will still buy a dedicated mac program over a pc incarnation with lower competition.

 

[mozmac]

Don't forget Spider Solitaire!

Oh yes. And while we're at it, let's not forget network-capable Hearts. That was all the craze at my junior high back in 95.

 

[C00rDiNaT0r]

There goes my conspiracy theory someone tell Apple to change it so it always starts by default in OS X

No I think it's totally fine. WinXP will probably keep crashing, to a point where people will get so frustrated and will start using OSX without looking back at XP.