Intel Mac Firmware Update Brings BIOS Support

[Abu Reno]

Which Mac?

Can please specify what mac you are running, if so will it run on the iMac?

 

[nataku]

Holy.... Apple just keeps em coming! I am speechless.

 

[hh83917]

I hope some people come up with some benchmarks of the Macbook Pro vs regular PC laptops since the graphic drivers are available now.

 

[blitzkrieg79]

I hope some people come up with some benchmarks of the Macbook Pro vs regular PC laptops since the graphic drivers are available now.

Why would anyone think that Mac running Win XP would be faster than a PC running Win XP when both of them would have the exact same processor, graphics card, memory, hard drive... There is no more speed race between Macs and PCs, right now Mac is just a nicely packaged PC that is able to run OS X.

 

[shamino]

Nothing specific, however Apple implies a couple of times on the Boot Camp page that this is a beta of a feature in Leopard. However, can you really call a firmware update and some drivers a feature OF Leopard?

Why not? They consider lots of other bundled apps (like Automator, the DVD player, Disk Utility, etc.) part of Tiger.

They just gave them to us for free

Keep in mind that what they gave out was a beta (meaning pre-release), and it only works with a single-disc install of WinXP SP2. In order to become a proper product, it must support installation from any WinXP install disc, not just one specific release.

A more generalized dual-boot facility, to support other operating systems (like Win2K, DOS, Linux, and others) would also be an important feature, even if Apple doesn't bundle drivers for them all.

What they gave out was really a message, saying "here's what we're working on. Please use this instead of the internet-hacked solution that may end up screwing your firmware, creating a problem for all of us."

1) Being able to run the two OSes separately but at the same time, so you can switch between them - unlikely

Yes. Unlikely.

2) Being able to run one OS inside (or at least appear to be inside) the other (possibly switching between the two), with the ability to exchange data a la Virtual PC - drop dead certain.

I think this will remain in the purview of third-parties. I will expect features in Leopard to make VPC easier to implement. I seem to recall MS complaining that they need some OS extensions to make it work, so Apple will probably implement something along those lines.

3) Being able to run Windows Apps in Mac OS X without running Windows itself (and possibly Vice Versa) - man I hope so.

Won't ever happen. Apple is not going to design, implement, test and support Microsoft's APIs. That would be a spiral of doom for them.

As OS/2 and WINE users quickly learn, this approach means you are forever playing catch-up, as Microsoft keeps on releasing new OS features, often bundled with application service packs. With this approach, you end up never ever being 100% compatible, with apps always breaking in random annoying ways.

A Classic-like mode, where a user-installed copy of Windows runs under the covers in a virtualization environment is, IMO, the most we will ever get from Apple. Anything more will be third-party. And I think even that approach will be third-party.

Remember, Apple's goal is to sell Macs. It is not to become a universal application-support platform. Their goals and your desires are not likely to be the same.

I think we're going to be seeing a very different approach to integration. Microsoft is talking about libraries for bringing the Vista UI to Mac OS, so Windows developers can target both platforms. And rumors say that Apple is resurrecting the "Yellow Box" concept, bringing the Carbon/Cocoa APIs to Windows, so Mac developers can target both platforms.

Personally, the latter is what I want to see. I've started learning Cocoa programming, and I'd love to use this environment for Windows programming. (Heck, I'd like to use it everywhere. Unfortunately, the closest equivalent, GNUStep, is not all that stable, and doesn't have all the features Apple provides.)

Coupled to the sales advantage of all Intel Apples being able to cleanly run all environments, and Apple's marketshare and development community could increase dramatically.

Or it could completely kill Mac development.

If Mac OS can run Windows apps, what's to stop from developers from deciding "I'll just write Windows apps and tell the Mac users to run that version"?

The Yellow Box approach goes in the right direction. It allows Mac developers to target Windows systems, and may entice Windows developers to move over to the Mac APIs.

Providing Windows API support (especially if this includes binary application compatibility) in Mac OS, has the opposite effect. It encourages developers to select the Windows API as their One True API, eroding the Mac developer base.

 

[bketchum]

We may never know the behind-the-scenes process, but I tend to think that promoting Windows-on-Mac is a recent decision by Apple, not something planned all along. (Although it was surely on their list of "things we could do.")

I agree. Business moves often open up new business opportunities that aren't apparent beforehand. It seems to demonstrate Apple's nimbleness to react to new market demand.

 

[shamino]

And since this is going to be built in to 10.5 I wonder if 10.5 will be the stopping point for PPC Macs. Meaning, 10.4 is the last OS that Apple will allow to run on PPC Macs. I know, it doesn't even make sense to me as I type it, but Apple's been known to kill things off pretty fast before...

If history means anything, more than four years elapsed between the first PPC Macs and the first 68040-incompatible Mac OS.

System 7.1 was the first to support PPC. It, followed by 7.5, 7.6, 8.0 and 8.1 all supported the 68040. 8.5 was PPC-only.

Judging from this, I will expect 10.5 to be PPC-compatible. I will expect 10.6 (probably some time in 2009) to be Intel-only.

Of course, only Apple knows the plan. And they probably only have a plan for 10.5. The issue of PPC-compatible 10.6 is something that probably won't be decided for a few more years, depending on how many PPC systems are still in use at the time. (And FWIW, the extent of my caring will be 100% tied to whether I'm still using any PPC machines at the time.)

 

[shamino]

Why would anyone think that Mac running Win XP would be faster than a PC running Win XP when both of them would have the exact same processor, graphics card, memory, hard drive... There is no more speed race between Macs and PCs, right now Mac is just a nicely packaged PC that is able to run OS X.

True, but you probably won't be able to find a PC that is an exact match. There are always differences in motherboard design, chip timings, power management algorithms, etc. So benchmarks will still be useful - just as they are when comparing two different "made for Windows" PC with the same processor, graphics card, etc.

 

[maximumbarkly]

This means I install OS X on a 3/8 of the drive, Windows on 2/8, Ubuntu on 2/8, a Universal (most likely FAT32) partition on the last eigth... held together by GRUB.

I want my MacPro.

 

[Stridder44]

I hate the RIAA

 

[Stridder44]

If history means anything, more than four years elapsed between the first PPC Macs and the first 68040-incompatible Mac OS.

System 7.1 was the first to support PPC. It, followed by 7.5, 7.6, 8.0 and 8.1 all supported the 68040. 8.5 was PPC-only.

Judging from this, I will expect 10.5 to be PPC-compatible. I will expect 10.6 (probably some time in 2009) to be Intel-only.

Of course, only Apple knows the plan. And they probably only have a plan for 10.5. The issue of PPC-compatible 10.6 is something that probably won't be decided for a few more years, depending on how many PPC systems are still in use at the time. (And FWIW, the extent of my caring will be 100% tied to whether I'm still using any PPC machines at the time.)

Well said

 

[MacNemesis]

No need for BootCamp

FYI, if you already have a second partition, you can extract the Drivers disk image and make your own drivers disk. Then with the Firmware update you can install windows on another partition. All BootCamp brings to the table is the ability to dynamically partition your drive. It's unnecessary if you already have another partition (for whatever reason). Just choose the right one upon installaton. Wicked fast on a MBP 2.16 Ghz BTW.The startup disk control panel in Windows is eerily similar to the Mac OS X one.

 

[Compufix]

I noticed this in the description too. Now if the will add live repartitioning to DIsk Utility that will be really really cool. Windows users have had that for years and us Mac users are stuck reformatting a drive when we want to adjust the partitions (unless we buy thrid party software).

Take a look at the Command line

diskutil resizeVolume



-Compufix

 

[freiheit]

XP only? No Win2K support?

So I wonder who will be the first to boot linux or media center using this?

I assume most drivers will be fine for MCE, linux will require more DIY.

I'm personally interested in Win2K support. I can't stand XP but 2K is at least decent.

 

[seand]

The startup disk control panel in Windows is eerily similar to the Mac OS X one.

That's part of the driver cd, I believe, so it's Apple supplied - no surprise on the similarity. I can't currently check, but I don't remember having a startup disk option on XP.

 

[trailblazer]

EFI and BIOS
Macs use an ultra-modern industry standard technology called EFI to handle booting. Sadly, Windows XP, and even the upcoming Vista, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS. But with Boot Camp, the Mac can operate smoothly in both centuries.


hahaa, from apple's boot camp site.

 

[admiraldennis]

Nothing computer-related has made me happier in many, many years.

I can't WAIT to get a MacBook Pro now.

 

[admiraldennis]

That's part of the driver cd, I believe, so it's Apple supplied - no surprise on the similarity. I can't currently check, but I don't remember having a startup disk option on XP.

It's Apple-written.

 

[freiheit]

If Mac OS can run Windows apps, what's to stop from developers from deciding "I'll just write Windows apps and tell the Mac users to run that version"?

The Yellow Box approach goes in the right direction. It allows Mac developers to target Windows systems, and may entice Windows developers to move over to the Mac APIs.

Providing Windows API support (especially if this includes binary application compatibility) in Mac OS, has the opposite effect. It encourages developers to select the Windows API as their One True API, eroding the Mac developer base.

Quite true. OS/2 users of the mid 90's can attest to that phenomenon. Why write OS/2 native programs when OS/2 could run 99% of Windows 3.1 programs? Where is OS/2 today? I do not want to see that happen to MacOS X.

 

[weldon]

That's part of the driver cd, I believe, so it's Apple supplied - no surprise on the similarity. I can't currently check, but I don't remember having a startup disk option on XP.

It is Apple supplied. The details are all provided on the Boot Camp page and in the installation guide.

 

[stefan15]

Nothing. Do you seriously think Apple began development last month?

Do you seriously think Apple would have released it this soon (before 10.5) if it wasn't for onmac.net? Besides, didn't the solution only take about 2 weeks of programming between 2 people??

 

[Electro Funk]

Well... Ran Bootcamp on my 20" 2ghz iMac... made the driver CD for XP....

Came to partition the drive... Allocated 15gb of 500 for win XP...

started the partition and got the error:

your startup disk cannot be partitioned because varification failed.
start up your macintosh from a mac osx install disk and use disk utility to repair your startup disk

 

[freiheit]

Well... Ran Bootcamp on my 20" 2ghz iMac... made the driver CD for XP....

Came to partition the drive... Allocated 15gb of 500 for win XP...

started the partition and got the error:

your startup disk cannot be partitioned because varification failed.
start up your macintosh from a mac osx install disk and use disk utility to repair your startup disk

And what happened after you started up with the OSX install disk and used Disk Utilty to repair your startup disk? Keep in mind, it is a beta program. It's probably also wise to run Repair Permissions before installing and using Boot Camp.

 

[cnakeitaro]

Well... Ran Bootcamp on my 20" 2ghz iMac... made the driver CD for XP....

Came to partition the drive... Allocated 15gb of 500 for win XP...

started the partition and got the error:

your startup disk cannot be partitioned because varification failed.
start up your macintosh from a mac osx install disk and use disk utility to repair your startup disk

Yeah I got this too. I did what it said and repaired my disk, and reran Bootcamp it worked great.

 

[Richard Bleiche]

Demise of Mac Software

With Boot Camp: 2 issues.

(1) Why on earth will on-the-fence, or even mainstream mac vendors spend the enormous time and effort to create two separate programs? Just make it for Windows and you can run it now on a mac. This may unwittingly signal the end of OS X software. To create programs in each code is a tremendous cost and undertaking.

(2) Here comes the Windows virus for mac: You infect Windows with a virus, that targets the OS X partition on your hard drive.

NOT good news in my opinion.