Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Boot Camp Finally Supports Windows 7 On Macs

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the just-like-real-boot-camp-only-nicer-colors dept.

OS X 216

Dave Knott writes "After some delay Apple has updated Boot Camp to support Windows 7 on Macintosh computers. They have also provided an upgrade utility that facilitates transition to Windows 7 for Mac owners who have existing Vista installations. The new version of Boot Camp requires OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard)."

cancel ×

216 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In other words (-1, Redundant)

elsJake (1129889) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966024)

You won't buy their new operating system untuil you get ours.

Re:In other words (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966424)

Ummmmmm..what are you talking about? Take a look at this [nimp.org]

mo parent up! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966516)

Hahaha, what proof!!

Re:In other words (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966572)

Fuck you, fucking asshole.

Re:In other words (1)

elsJake (1129889) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966522)

Did i miss something ? Is it really redundant to bring attention to the fact that software required to boot into another operating system shouldn't depend on weather or not you have the latest version of one of the operating systems ?

Re:In other words (4, Interesting)

Bruha (412869) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967030)

I agree, however Apple has a long history of breaking compatiblity to force you to upgrade to a new product.

Aperature 1 owners upon upgrading to 10.6 find they can not load Aperature until they pay to upgrade to version 2. Happened to Me.

2007 Mac Pro owners find they have to buy a new Mac Pro to get new graphics cards (what's the point of a Mac Pro if you can not upgrade the internals) guess hard drives suffice.

I'm sure the list is longer than that as well. Also iPod 2g owners will soon probably find themselves forced to upgrade to get new apps when a SDK 5 drops or some similar excuse.

In 2004 we got ipods, then mac mini,s then I got a Mac Pro in 07, worked for a good bit, then the BS started, and were back to using Windows 7. It's was just a phase I keep telling myself.

I'd rather leave it in a cow pasture (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966026)

It'd wind up with less crap on it that way.

...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (3, Informative)

flydpnkrtn (114575) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966030)

.....just sayin'

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (2, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966202)

Yep... and also with the commercial VMWare Fusion and Parallels Desktop. They had free betas when Windows 7 was in the free beta period as well.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966268)

Of course, the problem with running Windows on a Mac is Microsoft's pricing structure. Boot Camp or Parallels or VMware or VirtualBox needs a retail copy of Windows. But it turns out that one can actually buy a whole PC running Windows, including a spare keyboard and mouse, for close to the price of a retail copy of Windows.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (3, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966392)

That's not by accident. That's planned that way.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (1)

KibibyteBrain (1455987) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966456)

I doubt it. The pricing of Windows has changed very over the years. So unless they planned for PCs in the late 200x's to be around the same cost as a windows license in 1995, It is mostly just incidental.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967360)

Microsoft planned for the cost of hardware to go down. They wanted their profit margins to stay the same.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966506)

Only in the US, though.

Everywhere else, you can buy System Builder (not to be confused with OEM licenses, though many people refer to SBE as OEM) licenses. They're pretty reasonable, around 120$ for Home Premium. The license is bound to the hardware with the first installation though (legally - technically, you can still activate other machines by calling up Microsoft).

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (1)

kjart (941720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966534)

Of course, the problem with running Windows on a Mac is Microsoft's pricing structure. Boot Camp or Parallels or VMware or VirtualBox needs a retail copy of Windows. But it turns out that one can actually buy a whole PC running Windows, including a spare keyboard and mouse, for close to the price of a retail copy of Windows.

I agree that the pricing of retail Windows is pretty ridiculous, and it continues to surprise me that people buy Windows that way. That being said, I don't like the fact that you have to upgrade OS X in order to get driver support for a new version of Windows. This isn't unusual in the software vendor world (i.e. buy new version to get new features) but it sure is abnormal in the hardware world, and Apple is the hardware vendor in this case. I really shouldn't have to buy your OS to get functioning drivers for your hardware in someone else's OS.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (-1, Flamebait)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967154)

why not? MSFT doesn't support modern standards in win7 32 bit edition (EFI) and every one else has to hack their systems to make windows work. Since win 7 64 bit has poor software support and MSFT is unable to do a decent 32 bit /64 bit transition. every one else has to patch and hack windows to do simple things.

Bios like the rest of 1990's computer tech(win32 active X) needs to die and quickly. however msft will support win32 and the win16 developers until at least the last half of this decade and probably beyond.

It is a sad state that msft developers will build .net applications and then use windows 95 era installers for said software. it is sadder that msft lets such things happen.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967294)

however msft will support win32 and the win16 developers until at least the last half of this decade and probably beyond.

Microsoft is going to support win32 as long as Intel makes chips that are 32-bit only, like most of the Intel Atom line (used in Netbooks).

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966878)

Retail copy... llulllllll

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967076)

Are you sure about that? I bought the Windows 7 upgrade and put it on my computer. I didn't have a prior version of Windows. It still runs after all these months.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967216)

Running an upgrade without a valid license for the qualifying previous version might stop working after the next BSA audit. (And I'm not talking Scouts either.)

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967380)

...Thats assuming you are audited from the BSA. Home users aren't.

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967414)

While I'm sure that they would all prefer that it be cheaper, I doubt VMware and company are much worried.

You definitely can get a fully functional, if not very exciting, wintel box for about the cost of a Windows licence. However, that probably won't be of too much use to your average mac user contemplating windows: The bulk of Macs sold are laptops. If you are using a laptop, you are likely carrying it around at least sometimes. Suddenly, your HP box or Asus netbook or whatever it was you purchased for the cost of the OS it runs starts to look annoying.

Even if you have a Mac desktop, you are going to run into issues: iMacs can function as monitors; but only if the input source is Displayport. With a cheap PC, you'll get VGA or DVI, which means that you'll need either another monitor, or an active converter. You'll also need another set of peripherals, and the desk space for them, or a KVM. Standard 2 or 4 port VGA/PS2/USB KVMs are cheap; but DVI/USB KVMs are kind of pricey. I haven't even dared to look at displayport KVMs. Users of Mac Pros are ever so slightly better off; particularly if they are using a third party monitor with multiple switchable inputs(ie. any Dell monitor that somebody with a $3,000 desktop would purchase); but they will run into the problem that, because they are on a Mac Pro, their windows applications would run faster in a VM than they would on a cheap PC(and since cheap PCs rarely have graphics worth anything, even the notoriously virtualization-hostile task of gaming won't work better).

Re:...Windows 7 runs great on VirtualBox on Mac (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966730)

And playing games in a VM still isn't as good as native, no matter how hard they try or claim that it is. Removing 2 layers of indirection (OS X and the Hypervisor) can't hurt.

I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966050)

Lately I've been thinking about buying a Mac. It's not because I want to run Mac OS X; I don't. I want it just to run Windows.

Why would I spend three times as much on a Mac just to run Windows, when I could buy a Dell instead? Well, it's because I want to support Apple as best I can. I love my iPhone, and I will get an iPad as soon as I can. Apple has earned my love, and my support.

I just wish that iPhone OS ran on their desktop systems. It's the best operating system I've used in a long time.

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows. (-1, Troll)

flydpnkrtn (114575) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966112)

... is this a troll?

The iPhone OS is basically "Max OS X embedded" (it's based on the Darwin core of OS X)...

So basically you want just a dashboard with apps to run and no freedom to run what you want? I think the iPad will follow that model...

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966120)

I think you kinda answered your own question on this one. HAND.

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows. (5, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966236)

I just wish that iPhone OS ran on their desktop systems. It's the best operating system I've used in a long time.

Maybe single-application mode [tidbits.com] is what you want in Mac OS X?

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966274)

Whoosh.

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows. (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966602)

GP needed a tag I could see people thinking like that.

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30967336)

Slither.

FTFY

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows. (2, Interesting)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966744)

It is unclear to me why you would have to spend 3x as much to run Windows. I recently went Mac and I did price comparisons and found the difference to be $100 in favor of comparable Dells. Only then because they were having some kind of fire sale.

Re:I'm going to buy a Mac just to run Windows. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966872)

Lately I've been thinking about buying a Mac. It's not because I want to run Mac OS X; I don't. I want it just to run Windows.

Why would I spend three times as much on a Mac just to run Windows, when I could buy a Dell instead? Well, it's because I want to support Apple as best I can. I love my iPhone, and I will get an iPad as soon as I can. Apple has earned my love, and my support.

I just wish that iPhone OS ran on their desktop systems. It's the best operating system I've used in a long time.

if you love apple so much, why don't you marry it?

Great... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966090)

Just one more way the Mac elitists (Read: apple fanboys) can say they are better than every other kind of computer user. Your still using Foxconn motherboards....

Re:Great... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966264)

I'm backing up my MacBook to a file server with a Foxconn motherboard with an AMD Athlon 64 CPU that runs FreeNAS. And your point is...?

Re:Great... (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966450)

Foxconn boards are seriously cheap? Hell I switched to ECS for budget builds because even THEY were better than Foxconn. I honestly didn't know that Apple ran Foxconns, and if it isn't just BS...wow. Their profit margins must be truly insane if they are cheaping out with low rent boards like that. If I spent that kind of cash and found I was running a Foxconn board I'd be SERIOUSLY pissed.

For about 3 years the last shop I was at split our budget builds between Foxconn, Abit, and ECS. Abit boards died around 20%, the ECS actually was the best at less than 5% (with them you just have to watch the CPU because they are picky about voltages) but the Foxconns probably were closer to 45% toasty, which is why we ended up dropping the Foxconn and Abit boards and just sticking with the ECS. Between getting shafted with Foxconn boards and getting stuck with Nvidia "we'll just relabel the same chips as new ones!" easily overheated GPUs I would probably be seriously unhappy if I had gone out and spent Apple money on a machine. Wow...you would think at that price they could afford ASUS or Gigabyte.

Re:Great... (1)

Zencyde (850968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966598)

Dude, you get what you pay for. And if you pay for a Mac, you get a Mac. Try paying for an Asus.

Re:Great... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966664)

A Mac is a Mac, regardless of where the motherboard came from. For FreeNAS servers, I have no problems with Foxconn motherboards. For a PC gaming machine, I like Gigabyte motherboards.

maybe an explanation (1)

zogger (617870) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966688)

Maybe Apple gets all the first runs that pass QA well, and everyone else gets the rejects? Just sayin' because I haven't heard of Apple having a 45 percent failure rate. Or maybe on Apple's runs they have their own guys standing there watching the whole thing go down, to make sure they don't get stuck with lemons. Something like that.

note: not an apple fanboi, just thinking about what you have observed

Re:Great... (1)

jjoelc (1589361) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967174)

That would be the difference between fabricating the board and designing the board.

When you go buy a Foxconn board, Foxconn engineers designed the board, with the budget market in mind. They likely just took the chipset manufacturer's reference board and started cutting as many corners as they needed to and could get away with to produce a board that would compete solely on price.

When you see Foxconn imprinted on the Apple device, Apple engineers designed the board to their specs, with the specific components they felt they needed to meet their criteria. $40 retail price of the motherboard was definitely not one of Apple's goals in designing the board.

Re:Great... (0, Flamebait)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966992)

...that your still a douche.

I've been running it for months.... (3, Informative)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966106)

I've been running Windows 7 Eval edition since august when OS 10.6 came out. Even without bootcamp, it dectected my wireless card and intel graphics on my MacBook without any problems. How is this just now news?

Re:I've been running it for months.... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966160)

Because now (about 2 weeks ago actually) it's officially supported. I too have been running it for about 6 months on my MBP, and about the only improvements I've seen is temp is a lot cooler with the new drivers.

Re:I've been running it for months.... (1)

cybermancer (99420) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966162)

I've been running Windows 7 (MSDN final) on Snow Leopard bootcamp since it came out. So not sure what this "update" adds. One problem I did have was with the mini-dvi to VGA adapter forcing it into 640x480 resolution, but that appeared to also be an issue for Vista. Hopefully they finally fixed it!

Re:I've been running it for months.... (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966240)

Boot Camp can run anything. I have a Ubuntu install running alongside Mac OSX with Boot Camp, and some people even got OpenSolaris working (not much harder than Ubuntu or Windows, from what I've heard). It's more about Mac officially supporting Windows and providing all the necessary drivers.

Re:I've been running it for months.... (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966646)

OpenSolaris works just fine. I've used the live CD and it works.

Re:I've been running it for months.... (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967298)

Have you tried running it in a boot-camp dual boot configuration with OSX? It should work just fine, but it's nice to know exactly what the limitations are.

Re:I've been running it for months.... (1)

BemoanAndMoan (1008829) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966282)

I've been running Windows 7 Eval edition since august when OS 10.6 came out...

Yea, I installed 64-bit Windows 7 two weeks ago on my MacBook ... running serious apps and serious games (in terms of processor/support requirements) with no issues. Dual monitors with miniDVI, swapping usb keyboards/mice/external hd's in & out while running and not a single problem.

Er, thanks Apple?

Re:I've been running it for months.... (2, Informative)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966356)

I've been running Windows 7 Eval edition since august when OS 10.6 came out. [snip] How is this just now news?

Before, it worked. Now it should just work (tm). At least until you get to the bit where Windows takes over :-)

Back in the early days of Intel Macs, the beta bootcamp included essential firmware updates (e.g. the EFI BIOS legacy support stuff). Since then, however, you've just been able to slam in a Windows DVD and go, although if you're not careful you'll hose OS X in the process because Windows doesn't understand the OS X partition table.

These days, BootCamp is just the point'n'click wizard that holds your hand while you partition your hard drive to hybrid GUID/MBR and set up a dual boot system. Probably recommended, though, unless you have a Mac Pro and are installing windows onto its own hard drive.

Re:I've been running it for months.... (1)

cheier (790875) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966396)

What I am kinda hoping is that the updates fix some bugs in the drivers. I've had a number of occasions where the existing drivers caused things like BSOD and crashing. Most notably, I received a full hardware crash while using the webcam within Skype. There are some room for improvements in the driver, I just hope this update addresses them.

Re:I've been running it for months.... (2, Informative)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966722)

There are now optimized Win7 drivers, previously you were using generic drivers without acceleration provided by Microsoft or drivers designed for Vista from old versions of Bootcamp.

Both worked fine, but lacked full acceleration and feature set.

I've noticed the trackpad is better now, not so overly sensitive to touch or irratic. I've noticed no change in video performance at all. I really don't know what the differences are from a user perspective but as a causual gamer, I haven't noticed a difference in Company of Heros or StarTrek Online. Performance or quality seems the same.

I have had a bluescreen since updating which I never had before, but that was while playing StarTrek Online which I never played before. Only happened once and may have been there before the upgrade as well. It IS Windows after all.

Great news (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966114)

This is great news for the gay and lesbian community (not that there's anything wrong with that, BTW).

I applaud Apple for their unceasing support for rainbow nerds everywhere.

Regards,
Father Paul Flannigan

Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways tha (-1, Redundant)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966132)

Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways that apple locks down there hardware and makes you pay more.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966144)

Is English your third language? The only thing more feeble than your grip on the English language is your tired and ill-informed "argument". /. sucks these days. Also, fuck the facebook and twitter buttons. Ugh!

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966654)

Seriously. "Share this on facebook", "Share this on twitter". More like "Share this with the shark we just jumped. " and "Share this with the judge at our chapter 7 bankruptcy hearing."

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (3, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966166)

$29 upgrade fee send you into bankruptcy? How'd you afford the $100+ for whatever version of Windows you got?

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (1, Troll)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966672)

But how often do you have to spend that $29? Because despite what MSFT wants you can be just fine in Windows only buying once every 5 years or so, and the way MSFT has been you are better off. Its like this... 98 good, WinME suck, XP SP2/3 good, Vista royal suck, Windows 7 good, so Windows 8 will be a hoover vac o' suck.

That figures up to spending that $100 every 5 years or so as last I checked you can get system builders Win7 HP for $104. At $29 a pop and the faster release schedule I wouldn't be surprised if it cost more in the long run for OSX, hell you Apple guys shell out all that cash on a machine just to shell out more cash just to get a decent warranty, so why not even more for the OS?

and slightly OT, but why won't Apple guys just admit it is a Ferrari and be done with it? I have seen Apple guys tie themselves in logic knots while jumping through flaming hoops trying to prove that Apple computer gear is a "good value" when we all know its bullshit. Apple is like Ferrari--It is sleek, it is sexy, it is exotic looking, it is expensive. Why is that so hard to accept? Hell according to this article [neowin.net] more than a third of you are clearing over 100k a year, so just be happy you have money to burn on Ferraris, okay?

There are just certain laws of the universe you can't defeat: never get involved in a land war in Asia, Windows boxes are cheap, Linux guys like CLI, and Apple is expensive. Just be happy that you have enough disposable income to afford Ferrari computers and be happy, okay?

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (4, Interesting)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966802)

Because if we say "the hardware is like a Ferrari" then you will come back with "no it;s not, its just the same parts as in my PC just costs more!" - which is true. The packaging of the components is what makes it cost more, and the price is at a point the market will bear.

I know I couldn't find anything in the PC world that matched the features of my iMac - the form factor, the weight, the portability, the ability to run OS X without making a hackintosh. I'm not going to "kid myself" that the parts inside it are like a Ferrari though - I mean, it only has a Radeon X1600 which was only a midrange GPU at the time I bought it, and a regular SATA HD that is the same as the one in a normal PC. You get the picture.

It is "good value" if you believe that the price you paid for something (anything you buy, not just computers) is worth the cost, regardless of what it is. My iMac cost me £1200 when I bought it, and it was totally worth the price *to me*. It wasn't the fastest, or the biggest HD, or the best GPU or the most RAM, but it was worth every pound I paid, even if I could buy an equally specced (in terms of just pure computer spec) PC for a lot less. It's not all about raw performance.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (2, Insightful)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967032)

Nope, it's about looking cool in front of your coffee-house hipster d-bag friends.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967244)

The packaging of the components is what makes it cost more, and the price is at a point the market will bear.

What does packaging mean? And you could say that about any expensive product - "the price is at a point the market will bear".

I know I couldn't find anything in the PC world that matched the features of my iMac - ... the ability to run OS X without making a hackintosh.

Macs are PCs. And one could say there's nothing in the non-Amiga world that matches the features of an Amiga, because they can't run AmigaOS.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967372)

I'm sorry, but you misunderstand me. I'm talking about the whole smash here, nit just the guts, which makes sense as you wouldn't drop a Ferrari engine in a Camaro and say it should be worth Ferrari money, would you? With the Apple machines it is about the whole design, just like a Ferrari- the design, the lines, weight, and the guts. Everything is designed together to complete a look, which while I don't care for it personally I can understand why some people do.

But I just don't get the logic hoops. You don't see Ferrari owners tying themselves in knots trying to "prove" their car is a good value, do you? Hell no! It is sleek, and sexy, and exotic, and expensive as hell. Same applies to Apple. Even though I don't care for them I'll be the first to admit that Jobs does have taste, and an Apple looks really nice sitting on a table. So just be happy Apple guys, okay? Be happy you have Ferrari money, don't pretend the rest of us have big wads o' cash to blow on sports car, live and let live.

/pulls up flame proof long johns/ It is JUST like how the Linux guys tie themselves into knots trying to claim Linux is 'ready for the masses' and when you point out average users are afraid of control panel and every Linux forum is filled with NOTHING but miles and miles of VERY complex CLI gibberish, they then go "but..but but...CLI is more elegant! And powerful! If they would just take the time to learn CLI all would love it!" Bullshit, complete and utter bullshit. Giving the average user CLI is like letting a monkey with a wrench loose in a bomb factory...no good will come of it. It is no different when Apple guys tie themselves into knots trying to claim average Joes should buy Macs because they are a "good value" even though they can usually buy 4 PCs for the price of a single decent Macbook.

Everything has it place, to everything a season. Macs are for those with shitloads o' cash, that want their PC to look good as well as run good. Linux is for guys with CS degrees or who aren't afraid of spending hours reading man pages and learning CLI commands. And Windows is for gamers, and those like my mother who if it involves more than "clicky clicky" freezes up and just looks lost. Everything has its place and instead of logic hoops, can't we all just accept that different tools do different jobs and are for different groups and be happy? Can't we all just....get along?

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (2, Funny)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967218)

98 good, WinME suck, XP SP2/3 good, Vista royal suck, Windows 7 good, so Windows 8 will be a hoover vac o' suck.

It's just like Star Trek movies!

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (5, Informative)

iMouse (963104) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966168)

You DON'T NEED this update to run Windows 7 on a Mac in Boot Camp. This update is more or less targeted at newer Macs that already shipped with Snow Leopard that are experiencing problems installing 7. (see link)

http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/windows-classic-linux-other-os/174668-windows-7-27-imac-black-screen.html [mac-forums.com]

Windows 7 installed on Boot Camp 2.0 in Leopard also works fine.

 
  ...more ways people post crap before doing any research.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30967014)

Actually I installed Win 7 Ultimate X64 several weeks ago, but had a minor glitch in graphics and only one speaker working (though headphones worked well). The update for this fixed these issues.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (2, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966272)

So the $29 cost of Snow Leopard is the crippling factor, not the $100+ cost of the Win7 copy you want to install?

The straw that broke the camel's back perhaps?

Oh wait, you torrented Windows and just want a cheap (ha) dig at Apple.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (1)

subanark (937286) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966892)

I finally broke down and got snow leopard party so I could install Windows 7.
Yes, the $29 was the crippling factor, as Windows wasn't critical to what I was doing.
The $100+ you speak of is $0 in my case because I'm at a collage where we get Windows 7 Business for free (even after we leave).

Maybe others have special 'deals' as well? Or maybe some are more afraid of Apple's wrath in pirating software than Microsoft's.

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (2)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966944)

Well, given that all of the OS X installers are just DVDs, with no serial number, no online activation, no phoning home and no protections to prevent easy cloning of the disc, I don't think Apple's wrath is is that strong on that front.

It's one of those things - it's only $29 (or $129 in previous releases).

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30967022)

Is it... a pretty collage?

Re:Why do need to buy 10.6 to get this? more ways (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967266)

Or I could just install Windows on a non-Apple PC, and save the $29. Just because I spent $100, doesn't mean I feel like throwing an extra $29 away.

Unofficially for a while... (3, Informative)

mederjo (899667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966152)

I've been running Windows 7 RTM without problems on my Nehalem Mac Pro using Bootcamp for months. It was so painless I've forgotten the details but I think I started off with the Leopard Boot Camp and then updated it with the Boot Camp off the Snow Leopard GM. I did a clean install on a new partition. Windows 7 installed more easily than Vista Ultimate 64.

Re:Unofficially for a while... (1)

mederjo (899667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966180)

Replying to my own post, but out of the OSes I installed on my Mac Pro late last year Ubuntu was the most hassle because it didn't support the Intel ethernet card. I ended up having to recompile the drivers. Good thing I had other machines with a network connection otherwise I would have been a bit stuck.

It's been running fine for me for over a month. (1)

Brie and gherkins (778845) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966154)

Unless there's some optimisation of drivers? I've not had any problems with a fresh install of Windows 7 64-bit on my MacBookPro multibody using Bootcamp 3.0.1 on Snow Leopard. What problems have people had?

Hint: If you want Win7 64bit on older MBP (3, Informative)

linumax (910946) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966190)

These Macs [apple.com] won't have an issue with 64bit Win7 (or Vista). If however, you have an older machine as in my case (2007 Santa Rosa MBP) you might have trouble installing Windows 7 using the DVD.

In case it locks at boot up when trying to install you can modify the ISO and burn it to a new DVD. I used this guide [logicalvue.com] and it worked fine.

Re:Hint: If you want Win7 64bit on older MBP (1)

hedrick (701605) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966558)

I'm running Windows 7 on the original 2006 Intel Macbook Pro with no problem. The Bootcamp update wasn't supposed to work on machines that old, but did.

After Some Delay... (-1, Flamebait)

macs4all (973270) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966220)

...Slashdot FINALLY reports this news...

Um, the BootCamp update has been released almost TEN DAYS AGO [apple.com] , ya know.

Old news for nerds, stuff that mattered a week ago.

Good place to ask for help (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966238)

I want to install windows XP on my wife's macbook pro. A ran bootcamp and windows installed okay but my XP install disk is pre service pack 2. The apple drivers for windows on the macbook require SP2. Windows can't use the ethernet or wifi to upgrade itself. Microsoft don't give you a simple executable to download to upgrade to later service packs unless you have a special account with them.

My brother gave me an executable which supposedly will install SP2 but it failed for a bizarre reason (claims only 3 megabytes free, I have about 80 Gig).

So I am stuck. Any suggestions? Thanks.

Re:Good place to ask for help (2, Insightful)

heffrey (229704) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966304)

Slipstream SP2 onto the SP1 XP disc. Slipstreaming is the process of converting an installation disk to a higher service pack (well, that's what I think it is!) A bit of Google and you should be there in an hour or so.

Re:Good place to ask for help (2, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966578)

Thanks that very helpful. I found a howto [helpwithwindows.com] which links to an install of SP2 [microsoft.com] and I tried that file directly. But it does the same thing as my brothers file. It fails with a message saying the system has less than 4 mb free. I will try the full slipstreaming thing. Thanks.

Re:Good place to ask for help (1)

MeanE (469971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966940)

If you are getting the 4mb error this is usually due to an old version of bootcamp in Leopard. If you are running Leopard you need at least boot camp 2.1 http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/apple/application_updates/bootcampwindowsxpdriversupdate21.html [apple.com] .

Although not required you can install 2.2 http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/apple/application_updates/bootcampdriversupdate22forwindows.html [apple.com] as well.

If you are running Snow Leopard then you might want to check out http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3841 [apple.com] and disabling this driver until you get SP's installed.

Then again all these problems could just be due to running SP0/1 .

Re:Good place to ask for help (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967198)

Screw Slipstreaming SP2 onto the disk. The best solution is to simply grab the SP3 ISO image and burn a disk from it. This will install all of the updates after SP1 along with SP2 onto the system and it saves you valuable time futzing around trying to slipstream the updates onto the disk.

Re:Good place to ask for help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966324)

I want to install windows XP on my wife's macbook pro. A ran bootcamp and windows installed okay but my XP install disk is pre service pack 2. The apple drivers for windows on the macbook require SP2. Windows can't use the ethernet or wifi to upgrade itself. Microsoft don't give you a simple executable to download to upgrade to later service packs unless you have a special account with them.

My brother gave me an executable which supposedly will install SP2 but it failed for a bizarre reason (claims only 3 megabytes free, I have about 80 Gig).

So I am stuck. Any suggestions? Thanks.

Google. Every single xp userland problem ever has been discussed, if not solved some place. You'll find the answer.

Re:Good place to ask for help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966436)

I've seen this problems before. Theres a registry hack to get the SP2 to install properly. It's got to do with the Mac EFI.

1. Click Start – Run – Type “regedit” and press enter.

2. Navigate to

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Setup]

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE
        \Software
                  \Microsoft
                            \Windows
                                    \CurrentVersion
                                              \Setup

3. In the right pane, Right-click and select New – String value

4. Name it as “BootDir” and set its value to “C:\”

Re:Good place to ask for help (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966486)

What version of the bootcamp software do you have on the MBP - the earlier versions had a problem with SP2 that caused the SP2 installer to report only 3mb of space and fail, due to the way it was looking at partitions on the HD and looking at the wrong one.

If you can get a later copy of bootcamp (the windows part of it that you install with the drivers) then it should cure that issue. There is also a manual registry change you can make that sometimes works.

Re:Good place to ask for help (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966740)

I can't put the windows part of bootcamp onto windows because it requires SP2. I just tried another direct install of SP2 but it fails and says I have less than 4 mb free.

Okay looking for the registry trick. This seems to have done the trick [windowsreference.com] . Thanks.

Re:Good place to ask for help (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966846)

Ah of course, I forgot that - hopefully the registry trick does the job for you

Re:Good place to ask for help (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966826)

Maybe the installer is broken. You could try downloading SP3:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=5B33B5A8-5E76-401F-BE08-1E1555D4F3D4&displaylang=en [microsoft.com]

(or SP2, it is available in a similar package)

If the installer is intact, you are of into fun fun haha land.

I've had it installed... (0, Offtopic)

Schnoogs (1087081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966262)

since last summer. Doesn't sound like a new feature to me.

(will get modded troll, redundant, off topic or flamebait)

Re:I've had it installed... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966386)

You're already at a base score of -1, you can no longer be down modded. Either way, it actually is redundant, as several people have already brought up this point. Maybe you wouldn't have such shit karma if you actually read the comments first.

A year late... (3, Informative)

V50 (248015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966332)

Heh, I've been running Windows 7 64 bit on my MacBook Pro for just over a year now, having downloaded the first public beta out of curiosity. IIRC, it took just a minor amount of tweaking to the get Vista drivers to work for Windows 7 beta.

On that note, I'm mildly dismayed to find Win7 ending up good enough to be used as my primary operating system, which as happened mostly because the DirectX World of Warcraft seems to run better than the OpenGL one for me. That and a few other programs. I feel dirty having OS X end up as my third most used OS on this computer. (Triple booting Ubuntu 9.10, Win7-64, OS X 10.6).

ZOMG (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966574)

I feel dirty having OS X

As well you should, you flaming, fucking homosexual. Your ass is the go-to destination for every faggot in the state.

HFS+ driver.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966366)

CMD still crashes when trying to run 'dir' on an HFS+ partition.. I guess their QA is still busy testing iPad?

WHO CARES! STOP APPLE STORIES (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966394)

Are we Gizmodo? No.
Are we TAUW? NO.

Sex 3Ith a doll (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966420)

obliga7ed to care least I won't the project to sales and so on,

How about the iPad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966434)

Will this allow Windows 7 to run on the iPad as well?

/. Finally posts story about something 2 weeks old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966570)

Post Date: January 19, 2010

Yes, we know and updated 2 weeks ago. (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966670)

Not enough Apple news this week, now we're pulling out things from weeks ago? Everyone who cares already updated when they started Windows 7 and were notified that new drivers were available.

Hell the date on the links show its from the 19th.

You also don't need 10.6, just boot Windows 7 with the old drivers installed and Bootcamp will notify you of the updates and install them if you let it.

TIMMAH!

Where's the quid pro quo? (1)

7andrew (870879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30966762)

Still can't virtualise OSX though, at least not without a lot of difficulty and breaking the license terms.

Who cares? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966798)

Macs are for faggots anyway.

requires snow leopard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30966936)

So to support Microsoft's best and most reliable OS you have to be running Apple's worst and least stable OS (since leaving classic behind). Funny.

Not really (1)

koan (80826) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967028)

A clean install of Win 7 and the 3.1 package gave me no audio, a red light from the audio port (the opposite of what it was alleged to do) and no iSight, on further inspection in device manager there is also something called "coprocessor" that is not installed.
I got audio to work with drivers from Realtek, but no solution to the iSight issue or what the mysterious "coprocessor" is.

I don't know for sure but I would guess if you upgrade from Vista this most likely isn't an issue, I just never upgrade Windows OS's, always do a fresh install.

Re:Not really (1)

MistrBlank (1183469) | more than 4 years ago | (#30967210)

The red light from the audio port is the fiber optic, so unless your audio was showing as broken in device manager, it was actually working.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>