Apple Releases Boot Camp Beta

[^squirrel^]

If possbile could anyone with eithe an iMac or Macbook pro run a benchmark on these systems to see what kind of score we'd be looking at?

3dMark 2001 is free to download.

 

[thefunkymunky]

Well. I managed last night to get Boot Camp to partition my HD but it has also corrupted by OSX partition so now I cant boot OSX. Disk utility can't repair the drive nor can running 'fsck' in single-user mode. I am also having trouble installing XP, can't read my CD properly for some reason.

So right now. I am without my MBP with no OSX and no XP. I'm in work typing this.

 

[strange days]

Well. I managed last night to get Boot Camp to partition my HD but it has also corrupted by OSX partition so now I cant boot OSX. Disk utility can't repair the drive nor can running 'fsck' in single-user mode. I am also having trouble installing XP, can't read my CD properly for some reason.

So right now. I am without my MBP with no OSX and no XP. I'm in work typing this.

...ouch, my hat's off to you and all early adopters out there; hold steady through this tempest and you'll show us all the light of the new day when all is running fine.

 

[jope76]

Installed Windows without any problems last night. My OSX partition is intact and OSX is running great as always.

The instalaltion was really easy, Apple did a great job with Boot Camp and the driver cd.

Windows is also running great, fast and with all hardware working. Ok, not all hardware, but everything that Apple said would work works. Ran Doom 3 for a few minutes and it ran great at 1024x768 with high detail.
This will be good for games, and for stuff related to my daytime job, since I work with Windows all day.

(iMac Core Duo 17", 1.5Gb RAM)

 

[PCMacUser]

This is one of Apple's greatest moments.

 

[RedTomato]

Why it will work

My thoughts on why it will work:

1. For most people XP machines slowly die as they get filled up with spamware, weatherbugs, malware, various installations etc. (ok, us geeks clean them out, but most people don't know how to do that)

2. So it's time to buy a new computer.

3. Hey, lets try out that Mac that they've heard so much about! I can run both OSX and XP / VISTA

4. W00T XP is so fast compared to my old computer (cos it's a fresh install on the mac). I'm glad I brought this machine.

5. Mmm OSX is a bit tricky. Let's keep on using XP for a while.

6. XP gets slower and slower due to filling up with junk etc.

7. Let's have a look at the OSX stuff.

8. Mmm I can read all my XP files. And it seems a lot faster. Let's try doing a few things (iMovie etc) and creating a few files.

9. Back to XP. Grrr, it's really slow. And it can't read my OSX files.

10. Spend more and more time in OSX

Q.E.D.



.. RedTomato..

 

[Thomas Veil]

I bet Apple will try to trademark Boot Camp.

Hmm...maybe then they can sue the U.S. Marine Corps for copyright infringement.

 

[PCMacUser]

Hmm...maybe then they can sue the U.S. Marine Corps for copyright infringement.

And Microsoft... that's the name of their training camps for MCSEs...

 

[Thomas Veil]

3. Hey, lets try out that Mac that they've heard so much about! I can run both OSX and XP / VISTA

I think this is where your plan will die. Whether it makes sense or not, people feel "safe" (!) with what they know, which is Windows.

I know too many people personally who think of the Mac OS as something that's only for a small clique of computer geeks, similar to people who still love and coddle their Beta VCRs. (Yeah, it's an idiotic notion, but it seems to be common.)

 

[dalvin200]

2 questions:

1) i only have winxp home disc which has no service packs on the install - can you use this and then download sp2 from ms?

2) how do you un-install boot camp? will it affect ox s?

thanks

 

[chickenfriednic]

Might already have been asked but....

can you install the xp partition on an external disk??

 

[dogsbody]

What about when 95 worked on Mac...?

I haven't checked all the way through the thread, but I assume someone mentioned that there was a Mac a while back that had a Windows card in it so you could flick between Win and Mac. That was on System 7 and Win 95 if I remember correctly. You could even copy and paste between the two.

I would've loved to have one at the time, but I was just a kid without so much as a farthing to my name...

Can't wait to get an MBP with this on thought - I'll finally be able to demo my Windows consultancy work using my Mac laptop! Yahay!

 

[Stephanos]

More with the diesel analogy.

The conclusion you're drawing from your bad analogy makes no sense. Windows, in this regard, is the gas your car runs on. OS X is diesel, available at the minority of pumps across America.

Most people buy gas powered cars because gas is everywhere and they have more options in gas vehicles. If your car ran on both gas AND diesel, you'd probably end up filling up mostly on gas because it's more easily available.

So this real-world analogy also helps to show that Windows on Mac will eventually come at the expense of OS X support unless Apple has something up its sleeve.

Your analogy is very apt, but there's an alternative scenario:

More people buy these dual-gas cars since they can use cheap diesel and revert to gas when they can't find diesel or need the extra oomph, so the market for diesel increases, so gas stations that offer diesel have more custom, competition leads to more gas stations offering diesel, and hence diesel becomes a credible alternative and more widely available.

It could go either way. It's a gamble. I'm unconvinced that anyone can be sure of which way things will go. Steve is betting on people wanting diesel and this is a way to let them use it without the headaches of giving up gasoline. I'm not as much of a fanboy as some people who post here, but this is one reason I love Apple: it has confidence that its products are the best. I was getting my MacBook Pro next week, and now I've solved the three problems I'd have had with it (and currently have with my Powerbook):

- I couldn't try this wonderful EVE Online thing all my WoW friends are raving about
- I couldn't run my Sony Ericsson K750i's firmware update utility
- I couldn't use my bank's online payment system because it used proprietary IE-only PKI stuff

Same for my architect friend who values design above all else and has been drooling over Macs for years, but uses AutoCAD at work and had to stick to PCs.

Short term, this will lead to more Mac sales, no question. This means more people running OS X. Long term, this can either mean (a) more Mac OS X apps because the market is bigger or (b) fewer Mac OS X apps as app developers use the "just boot windows" excuse.

I'm hoping for (a), and there's a lot of reasons why, most of which have already been mentioned. Remember that times are a-changing, cross-platform development is a lot easier than it was a few years ago (porting existing obsolete codebases is an issue, yes, hence the Adobe/MS situation, but developing a new app cross platform right now is a hell of a lot easier than it was five or ten years ago), and cross-platform application platforms like Java or AJAX are on the rise.

As I said, an excellent analogy on so many levels.

 

[WeeManDan]

Just a quick thought, but do you think Apple will actively promote this when Leopard is released? I mean we are all thinking people will now buy Macs 'cos they can run Windows, but if no one outside the Apple fan base knows this then how will this change anything?

 

[zenvision]

ok my first post here on macrumors so go easy...

I see the MBP runs games like a charm through boot camp, but has anyone tested the audio capabilities? The main reason I'd want to try boot camp would be to run my PC audio programs like Cubase sx3, Acid Pro, Wavelab etc. and use Mac OS X for everything else (im not really a gamer). Anyone tried those (or other audio programs) yet?

This would sway my 'maybe I'll get a MBP' decision to 'definately!'

 

[javierbds]

Thevanian

I guess this is the straw that broke Thevanian's back

About people knowing it, is very simple :
Imagine your shop ...


Put 2 iMacs in the shop one with XP booted and the other with OS X.
Explain that if you want XP you have to go to ... to pay for it but that your Mac goes with Tiger (Leopard) and if you already have an original XPSP2 you can install it.


IT IS VERY SIMPLE ...

 

[BenRoethig]

people don't need windows... i don't care what you say... you don't need it. you're putting an inferior os with a superior one, and making ignorance rise. people go in the store all the time asking questions that boggle my mind. you can do whatever you want on a mac, there are solutions out there, you don't need windows to solve them.... this makes me furious.... damnit apple, why'd you hafta ruin my 30th anniversary party

It doesn't matter how superior an OS is if it doesn't have software able to do what you need it to.

 

[macpastor]

This is one of Apple's greatest moments.

I think you are right, although die-hard Mac fans think not. This is big news for Apple, and I believe will help them garner more users short-term and long-term.

 

[BenRoethig]

I think you are right, although die-hard Mac fans think not. This is big news for Apple, and I believe will help them garner more users short-term and long-term.

I wouldn't worry about them. They'll buy Apple no matter what anyway. Where else would they go?

 

[nostrum]

Apple are a hardware company, and this will help boost hardware sales. I was thinking of building a new PC to replace my current one, but now I can just go out and buy an iMac and load my copy of XP onto that. So if that was the aim of Apple its worked incredibly well. It does make me think that the future of Mac OS is now in doubt. Why bother investing millions in the operating system when you can use one thats got access to tens of thousands of pieces of software already and an installed user base of hundreds of millions. What would they lose by abandoning OS X?

Its looking more and more likely that they'll switch to Windows and market themselves as the BMW or Mercedes of PC manufacturers.

Then they'll probably open source Mac OS so it'll be like a superior version of Linux.

 

[Panu]

Good News all around

Bootcamp is a great idea for Apple.

Apple's latest tools allow developers to compile Universal binaries and Windows code.

It does not affect virtualization products, because it solves a different problem. Bootcamp allows you to run either one OS or the other. Virtualization products allow you to run a Windows application in OS X.

It will increase Apple's sales

It allows people to compare XP with OS X and eventually migrate to OS X.

In business, the creative types who want Macs can get them, because Apple has removed management's only objection

The MacBook Pro might become an executive status symbol

I see nothing but good news. Now all they need to do to put the cherry on top is come out with a MacBook Pro docking station.

----

PS: the latest MacBook Pros with a Rev D motherboard no longer run excessively hot. The Apple Store swapped mine out without me even asking. (I went in for a memory upgrade.) The current ones generate about the same amount of heat as any other laptop. (If your serial number begins with W8611, you have Rev D)

 

[JayMak]

2 questions:

1) i only have winxp home disc which has no service packs on the install - can you use this and then download sp2 from ms?

2) how do you un-install boot camp? will it affect ox s?

thanks

1) XP Home must be SP2 to install, you might be able to slipstream and create a SP2 disc to use.

2) Uninstall is just 1 click, its done that fast as well, does not effect OSX.

 

[Senbei]

I don't wanna repeat myself...but my assumptions are: (1) IF Apple officially (as with BootCamp) makes it easy for people to install Winblows; AND (2) we consider software that is NOT YET ported to the Mac = RESULT: no prospective software developers (like for Autocad and games) will make an effort to creat native OS X versions.

I am still waiting for reasonable counter-arguments to my theory here...

I like you. You make me laugh. - memorable quote from the movie Gung Ho. That last line is one of the best jokes I've read on this forum in awhile. If your sarcasm detector is disabled, turn it on now. It's easy to excuse the numerous drive-by "OS X development is d00med" postings but you seemed to have missed a number of rational posts in many of the previous Windows on Mac threads when you posted the exact same theory. Worst of all, you had to go on in one of those other threads about why all of these "newbies" have suddenly appeared and therefore must be Microsoft shills to which I say, some of us may be new to the forums but are longtime computer users of many different platforms and therefore, aren't as narrowminded about the pros/cons of each platform compared to some of those users who are blinded by hardware and software zealotry, who act no different than the lemmings in the original Apple commercial marching to the old Guy Kawasaki Macevangelist beat, and look at their computer as some icon of worship as opposed to being the multipurpose tool that it is. I fully expect this reply to be glossed over just because it is too long but what the hell, since you can repeat the same, so will I.

Some of us prefer Mac OS X by choice but have certain needs which requires running Windows based applications (some occasionally, some more than others). Being able to do this on an Intel Mac without the great performance tax of emulating the complete x86-ISA like with the PowerPC version of Virtual PC is a serious benefit to those who can make use of this. No one is putting a gun to yours or anyone elses head requiring you to buy a retail copy of Windows to dual boot (and the same will apply to a virtualization product as a guest OS would still need to be acquired). This one fact makes this notion of OS X development being killed off pretty much a flawed theory.

Using your logic, free opensource software should have overtaken the Mac application space by now given that the BSD subsystem is installed by default. Adobe could have told Mac users to just use the GIMP. Microsoft could have told us to use Open Office. Did that happen? NO.

Yet you and others keep bringing up this theory about prospective developers no longer having any reason to create native OS X versions of applications and games. Well you said it yourself, NOT YET ported. What if anything has changed? These companies weren't creating those native versions to begin with (even before this Intel switch was announced) when they could have been doing it all along. We haven't lost anything since we had nothing to begin with.

Using AutoCAD as an example, how long has Mac OS X been out on the market? Using that as a gauge, Autodesk has had that many years to bring out a version of AutoCAD for the Mac. They equally could have told Mac users to purchase VPC and a copy of AutoCAD for Windows but they never did because companies like this aren't that stupid to "market" their products in such a manner since doing so destroys any goodwill which would have serious repurcussions if they ever do decide to enter the Mac market in the future. Someone else posed some of this before but you and so many others seem to selectively ignore this fact. Sure, the move to Intel presents the ability to run Windows natively via dual boot or with far better performance in VPC-like fashion via some future virtualization product (which is what I'm waiting for) but bottomline, it is still a Mac where the primary operating environment is Mac OS X and native OS X apps will continue to be the primary choice when available (and for some, the only option). The move to Intel does not make porting such an application any easier as the difference is still programming for Windows and Mac OS X. The same thing goes for game software companies. They weren't exactly tripping over themselves and beating down the doors to develop or port their games to the Mac before. There is also the issue of DirectX which many game developers utilize.

If you are talking about possible future development since the time the Intel Mac's were released, than we'd still be getting the shaft waiting for who knows how long as the bottomline to these ISV's is Mac marketshare. Everything Apple has tried since Jobs took over before the switchover to Intel has failed to yield sizeable marketshare gains. It has been a little-by-little process. If providing enabling technology to make running other operating systems an easier prospect (which then allows those who can make use of this capability to get the most out of these systems) and this ability potentially attracts new customers resulting in increased Mac hardware sales over time, this would be the needed growth in marketshare numbers that will provide the catalyst for companies business decision with regards to Mac OS X software development. That sort of stuff does not happen overnight though and will also require Apple's developer relations to reach out.

If we're talking about those companies who now port games to the Mac reconsidering that move because these Intel Mac's are able to dual boot, it is still going to be a small niche within the Mac market as there is still the larger demographic who have no intention of purchasing a copy of Windows, purchasing a copy of a Windows-only game, and then dual booting in order to run that game. The majority of Mac users are going to opt for Mac-native versions.

If you cannot understand this simple fact, take a look at yourself and others who detest Windows so much that you refuse to ever consider putting it on your own Mac and will use whatever means to find a suitable Mac alternative as opposed to ever running Windows. Companies who enter or are already in the Mac market fully realize this as they aren't as clueless as users think they are. It's called understanding your market demographic. To push that point further across, I'm sure some folks who have been using Mac's since the early to mid 90's remember that atrocity known as Microsoft Office 4.2 or more specifically, the Word 6 app which was a port of the Windows version. Many including myself stuck with Version 5 for the longest time because the new UI was not Mac-like. This is one of the other reasons why the Mac BU came into existence as Microsoft learned the hard way about the sort of expectations Mac users have when it comes to how their programs work. Office 98 revealed that and also showed how different both Word 98 and Excel 98 were from their Windows Office 97 counterparts.

Apple with these Intel Mac's are offering customers plenty of options. In the absence of OS X native software and/or the requirement to run a specific Windows based software for which there is no Mac equal (even if there is some other equivalent by another developer) as mandated by a company, the only alternative for some of us is to run Windows. The ability to either dual boot for the best performance and in the near future, use virtualization solutions (with much higher performance than what VPC on PPC could ever deliver) means being able to consolidate computing hardware into one system. For dual platform companies, this is a big deal because this will result in cost savings in not only hardware purchases but also with other things like support contracts and electric bills. Some companies may follow Aozora Bank's lead but that scenario won't be as common since corporations have many man hours invested in staff training for operating a Windows desktop.

For potential consumer switchers, these options are going to be a boon as it will make their transition much smoother. Most casual consumers who are switching aren't going to switch to Mac hardware (and pay a slight premium in the process) just to run Windows as their primary OS but being able to run Windows at or near native speed as a safety net makes things more attractive. Additionally, Apple isn't supporting Windows as they are not shipping the OS with their hardware. All they are doing is providing the enabling technology and associated Windows drivers to make the process easier in Apple-like fashion and a better Apple-like experience for their customers who can make use of this functionality.

Finally, those who think this is another OS/2 scenario probably don't realize that it was a variety of circumstances which led to it failing against Windows. Furthermore, IBM licensed the Windows source in order to make the necessary modifications for seamless mode and therefore (as others have pointed out), included a full copy of Windows as part of WinOS/2 (the Mac solutions require the user to purchase a copy of Windows). I was an OS/2 user before switching to the Mac in 94 and recalled a candid discussion after an OS/2 demo with both Lee Reiswig and OS/2 demonstrator David Barnes about how their group was pretty much fighting an uphill battle even within IBM (think lack of communication and engineering resources). An original OS/2 ISV Stardock System has this article and this other one which contains tidbits about the sort of issues which OS/2 ran up against. Read the note about the support issues and it should become clearer why Apple is making a point that they are not officially supporting Windows because doing so would become a major technical support expense.

 

[Senbei]

I just don't like knowing that it CAN OFFICIALLY support windows.

Eh? Re-read the Boot Camp page as it explicitly states that "Apple Computer does not sell or support Microsoft Windows."

Is it necessary to have to 'hate' Windows to use a Mac? Can't you just like using Mac better?

For some portions of the Mac userbase, their Mac sets off a chemical reaction in their brain to make them hate Windows regardless if all that they know about the product is from what others have said instead of actually having longterm/hands on experience with it.

I'd still prefer virtualization, but I'm not surprised Apple doesn't go that extent. Leave that to VPC and other options.

Virtualization of the hypervisor variety at least on Leopard Server Intel stands a high probability of inclusion as by then, VT is going to be pushed heavily by Intel (not to mention the current virtualization craze). For Apple's server OS to compete at a basic level with the feature set of other products, it will have to more than likely include this capability. A basic subset (so as not to lock out 3rd party options like Parallels, VMWare, or even Microsoft VPC if MS execs can get past the politics of that which will likely be moot once Parallels makes their official announcement about their Intel Mac product) of that server version stands good probability of being included with Leopard client because it is easy to imagine Apple using a marketing line like "better way than using Boot Camp and dual booting to run Linux distributions or Windows side-by-side your OS X programs".

I've read in several places that this version of Boot Camp is a trial version with limited time. In no places does it actually say how long the trial is for. Does anybody know?

If this works like how other Apple beta software works, there is a built-in expiration date far in advance (in this case, it is September 30, 2007) or around the time when a newer version should replace it (with a later expiration date). In this case, since this is a beta of something which will be included in Leopard, it can be deduced that Leopard will be out well before that September 30, 2007 expiration date and if not, that a newer beta with a later expiration date will be released.

 

[macpastor]

I know many die-hard mac fans are upset, I keep reading these posts, but I think this could really be a good thing. I don't see OS X going anywhere, and I don't think developers are going to abandon Mac.