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

Apple's Solution to booting Windows.

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...
 
... 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.
 
I wonder what happens to onmac.net's graphics-driver hunt? Does it get pulled down? Or does one lucky Apple employee make $1500 😛
 
Has anyone used both the $13,000 solution and the Apple solution? How different are the two techniques?
 
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.
 
cr2sh said:
Has anyone used both the $13,000 solution and the Apple solution? How different are the two techniques?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 😱 ..... for now. 😉 🙂
 
p0intblank said:
I haven't used either, but I do know for a fact that Apple's solution is MUCH more user-friendly.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
GimmeSlack12 said:
All that matters is that it works.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
I went from installing BootCamp to the XP desktop in under an hour and whew, XP is spunky when running on Apple hardware! 😀
I cant wait to get home and dust off my PC games!
(the ATI driver works flawlessly BTW)
 
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.
 
Works PERFECTLY. I did it on a 20" iMac today. Unbelievably fast in Windows, ans Google Earth looks absolutely awesome.

Go Apple.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back