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!

Multi-booting Mac Intel Developer Machines

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the multiplicity dept.

Operating Systems 273

ytsejam-ppc writes "Ross Carlson over at Jasbone.com has a great article up on how to install multiple operating systems on the new Intel based developer edition Macs. His particular setup triple-booted Mac OS X 10.4.1 (Intel), CentOS 4 and Windows XP. Just makes me drool."

cancel ×

273 comments

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

Yes (5, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161226)

And how many of us have these developer machines?

What that? Zero . . ah ok . . .

Re:Yes (2, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161243)

How is this a troll/flamebait? It's a logical comment, the number of us normal users who have or have access to the Developer Mac boxen is next to nil.

Re:Yes (5, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161332)

And yet, people have them.

Further, by the end of 2007, all Macs will be Intel based (according to Apple's initial statement).

So people might care to see what types of things may, and likely will, be possible.

Especially people who might want to buy *one* machine, say, a laptop, and run Mac OS X, Windows, Linux, and other x86 OSes on it, all at native speeds. And yes, one way or another, this will likely be trivially possible. See my other [slashdot.org] posts [slashdot.org] for more information.

In other words, this is very interesting to that group of people. Which, among slashdot readers, is probably quite a lot.

Re:Yes (1)

ak3ldama (554026) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161566)

that doesn't really change much, the original post should not be flamebait. hardly ever do discussions arise, involving doing things to items that are only available under nda. how many articles did you see showing how to build the open solaris source code before it went public?

WHY? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161230)

Why bother?
Looks like "just another waste of time" to me...

But will it run Linux... (2, Interesting)

chia_monkey (593501) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161232)

This looks dandy and all...I'd love to have a developer machine to do this to. But...will it run Linux and Windows on the actual machines in production that we'll see in a couple years?

Re:But will it run Linux... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161276)

it's just a normal PC ffs.

Re:But will it run Linux... (5, Interesting)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161289)

There's no reason to believe it won't.

See my post here [slashdot.org] for more details. At the very, very least it could run Linux and Windows nicely in a virtual machine environment, but it's very likely that yes, they will run Linux - and Windows - regardless of whether the final machines utilize BIOS, Open Firmware, or EFI. Why wouldn't they? Especially in the case of Linux. PowerPC Macs run several varieties of Linux today; why wouldn't they also be able to run on production Intel-based Macs, even if they make the surprising decision of using Open Firmware? And there's no reason Apple would want to *prevent* people from installing Linux, or even Windows, as Phil Schiller himself has said Apple won't do anything to preclude people from installing Windows on Intel-based Macs.

This is a huge coup for Apple: imagine a laptop that can seamlessly run Windows XP and Linux - PLUS Mac OS X. Or better yet, run one environment (such as Mac OS X) and have your other environments in a VM at essentially full speed. It would be a dream machine, to be sure.

Re:But will it run Linux... (1)

chia_monkey (593501) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161309)

I agree. This is a giant coup for Apple. To have your development and test machines all in one. Apple already has such a high profit margin on their boxes while PCs are such commodity items now. If this really does work, you get three machines on your Mac. Yet Steve said you couldn't just drop OS X on any PC (I'm sure there will be hacks out there for it...but still). Thus, any developer that wants a variety of environmens on just one machine will see the Mac as the only choice. Touche!

Re:But will it run Linux... (2, Informative)

artem69 (187604) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161521)

From the source [apple.com] :

Macintosh computers that use an Intel microprocessor do not use Open Firmware. Although many parts of the IO registry are present and work as expected, information that is provided by Open Firmware on a PowerPC Macintosh (such as a complete device tree) is not available in the IO registry on a Macintosh that uses an Intel microprocessor.

Re:But will it run Linux... (2, Interesting)

sql_noob (855995) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161528)

That's if Apple actually support the drivers in linux and/or windows.

Will apple open the hardware specifications so linux would work perfectly?

Will they provide the windows driver so unsatisfied clients can return their apple computer because the hardware does not work perfectly?

Another problem is that windows XP is quite expensive (non-OEM ver) and I don't think the apple would bundle windows XP OEM (original equipment manufacturer) in their machine.

Re:But will it run Linux... (2, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161665)

Will apple open the hardware specifications so linux would work perfectly?

There doesn't appear to be any problem with that with the current PPC models. If Yellow Dog can get Linux running well on a PowerMac G5 (and by all accounts they have), I don't see why anyone would have any trouble getting an x86 distro running just as well on a (PM)^2.

(That's a PowerMac Pentium-M, natch.)

Re:But will it run Linux... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161860)

Why should Apple provide windows drivers? They don't claim Windows compatibly. I doubt they be slapping a Designed for Windows XP sticker on them.

Assuming you can run XP on the final boxes, Apple is just giving people the option of running XP, if they like. I'm betting most users would prefer to run XP on top of a updated VirtualPC that runs XP at (almost) full speed, and you can still cut and paste between the two systems.

Think about that... You can run Aqua, X11, and Windows environments side by side.

Re:But will it run Linux... (1)

rapidweather (567364) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161542)

I wonder if it'll run a livecd linux. That would not require an installation on a hard drive, and one could be up and running in a few minutes.
Then let the hardware problems begin.

MS laughs last... (-1, Troll)

klubar (591384) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161668)

Actually it's a giant boost for Microsoft. Currently, on every Mac sold, MS gets the revenue for a copy of Office. Office on the Mac is rarely as cheap as pre-installed Office on the PC. Now, with every Mac sold, MS will not only get the revenue of a copy of Mac Office, but they can get the revenue of a retail copy of Windows XP (or Windows Vista). If MS is lucky, not only will each Mac owner buy Mac Office, Windows, but they may also buy a copy of Offic for Windows--so the Mac owner can be fully compatible with Office. Great news for MS-- nearly tripple the revenue from each Mac.

Remember MS doesn't make the hardware...they only sell the software. It will also be interesting to see how many of the Mac users decide that dual booting is too much trouble, and just stick with Windows. Windows running on a Mac will give all the panache of the Mac hardware...without any of the incompatiblities.

Prediction: Apple stops supporting their own OS and becomes a high-end hardware vendor and iPod seller. More margin, less investment. More profit

Re:MS laughs last... (2, Insightful)

bnenning (58349) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161735)

It will also be interesting to see how many of the Mac users decide that dual booting is too much trouble, and just stick with Windows

Approximately zero existing Mac users. If they wanted to run Windows, they'd have PCs already. Now, some future customers may buy Mactels so they can check out OS X, and then decide to go back to Windows full time, but that's still a win for Apple since they'll get profits from the hardware.

Prediction: Apple stops supporting their own OS and becomes a high-end hardware vendor and iPod seller

No. Steve has no interest in being a Microsoft thrall.

Re:MS laughs last... (2, Informative)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161894)

>Currently, on every Mac sold, MS gets the revenue for a copy of Office.

Uhh, the version of Office that comes with MacOS X, last I checked, was a time-limited trial, and not a fully copy. You still have to purchase a full copy if you want Office. So this statement is false.

Microsoft Office is very much optional on the MacOS X platform.

-Z

Re:But will it run Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161932)

a dream machine? EVERY x86 laptop will be able to run the three os with the help of virtualization. osx can already be run now in at least a couple of virtual environment... so why buying the apple one?

Re:But will it run Linux... (-1, Offtopic)

Lorkki (863577) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161317)

But...will it run Linux

Imagine a Beowulf cl-- *BANG*

Two words. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161482)

Who cares?

Seriously, Linux zealots - shit on the pot or get the hell off.

Meaning: Either show me 1 (one!) killer reason to use Linux (besides price or messing with the source code) that isn't offered by every other OS under the sun. Or shut the hell up.

I am sick and tired of the major advantages of Linux being "cost and source code". However, I NO LONGER CARE. If I cared about having the source code, I'd use FreeBSD because the BSD licence is less restrictive than the GPL. If I cared about cost, I'd use a free OS, but probably FreeBSD because of superior documentation and organisation. Bear in mind that up-front price means absolutely nothing to most end-users, and that almost nobody wants to mess with their computer for the sake of messing with their computer.

I run Windows XP and OS X, and I don't miss the lost hours wasted over Linux trying to rebuild a kernel or troubleshoot a package dependency problem.

Unbunatu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161733)

You should try the new Unbunatu distribution. It is fairly new and has excellent hardware support. One feature that impressed me greatly was the automatic printer setup and configuration. The GNOME desktop integrates the various graphical components very well. In addition, the GNOME environment succeeds where others have failed by removing important functionality (e.g. moving windows off the edges of the screen) in order to not confuse even the simplest of idiots.

As the current distro-of-the-week, Unbunatu has a large, helpful community. Roving bands of armed nomads break into homes and install Unbunatu on any computers they find. The nomads are very helpful and polite, I think. I can't quite tell what language they're speaking, but they sure know how to fix all kinds of problems! Sometimes they get a little excited, though. Try not to make any sudden movements or loud noises.

Really, give Unbunatu a try. It gives a whole new meaning to Desktop Linux!

And? (4, Informative)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161234)

Given these aren't production machines, this does not mean too much, especially given that these have a BIOS. There have been many suggestions that production Intel based Macs won't be using the BIOS.

Yes... (5, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161307)

...they likely won't be using BIOS.

But if they're using EFI (a distinct possibility), it's still likely that Windows will be able to be directly installed.

And even if they make the unlikely choice of Open Firmware, that doesn't stop Windows (and any other x86 OS) from running at essentially the full speed of the native underlying hardware in a virtual machine environment that someone is bound to produce. In fact, that's likely even *more* desirable to a larger number of people than the hassle of dual booting. And a VM is possible regardless of what the boot mechanism will be.

Re:Yes... (0)

dotgain (630123) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161393)

But if they're using EFI (a distinct possibility), it's still likely that Windows will be able to be directly installed.

Too much for one year! Not only will Apple be moving to x86, they'll also be using Electronic Fuel Injection!?! I'm gettin old...

Re:Yes... (4, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161415)

Hehe. ;-)

For others who might really not know what it is, this is EFI:

http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/ [intel.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_I nterface [wikipedia.org]

Re:Yes... (2, Informative)

tricorn (199664) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161826)

What I haven't seen is any reason why EFI is better than Open Firmware (better for everyone else, that is - obviously, it is better for Intel since they can control it). The Wikipedia article says that EFI mandates the use of FAT (and, presumably, the ancient creaky ought-to-be-obsolete DOS partitioning format).

Linux already can boot under OF (e.g. the PPC version of Linux), making that work under an x86 version of OF should be trivial. Loading a BIOS emulator under OF to boot Windows should also be fairly easy to do. Writing a bootstrap loader that implements OF, for old machines that want to boot an OS that only boots under OF, should also be feasible (see e.g. the OpenBIOS project [slashdot.org] .

Re:Yes... (1)

noewun (591275) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161710)

Nothing will replace my G5 with twin four barrel Holleys!

Bigger issue (4, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161651)

The bigger issue is that developers have to sign an NDA. I presume that includes discussing the machine, its internals, and so on.

Also, as a side note- I received a call a couple of days ago from a woman in the Developer Connection group (I love those Irish accents, rowr :-)...but the accent wasn't enough for me to say yes to leasing the intel developer machine.

"Have you heard about our offer for development systems to ADC Select members?"

"Yep." Who hasn't? People under rocks? :-)

"Are you interested in taking advantage of the offer?"

"Nope, sorry."

Question is, why are they having to do this? Is reception to the development system lukewarm? Did they make a whole bunch, and are just being aggressive about getting 'em out to people? (which would be a good idea). I guess $1k isn't bad at all if you're a serious developer (I'm not).

Kill Karl Rove (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161235)

The only punishment appropriate for treason is death, no matter the political party of the accused. Karl Rove deserves death, and would continue to deserve death if he switched party affiliations this very day. The fact that so many Americans provide vapid apologetics for his treason is proof enough of the decline of the American empire, for it takes deeper characteristics than military might to make a truly great nation.

Re:Kill Karl Rove (0, Offtopic)

polaris20 (893532) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161266)

The only punishment appropriate for treason is death, no matter the political party of the accused. Karl Rove deserves death, and would continue to deserve death if he switched party affiliations this very day.
Did someone forget to take their pills today? What exatly does this have to do with a Mac?

EVERYbody knows (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161631)

What exatly does this have to do with a Mac?

Uhm... he doesn't use MS-Windows. I won't tell you the *name* of the OS he uses, but it's the one put out by Apple.

now for the real question (1, Troll)

KaptNKrunchy (876661) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161237)

Which OS runs phtoshop faster?

Re:now for the real question (5, Informative)

rsborg (111459) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161299)

Which OS runs phtoshop faster?

Jeebus, this is a no-brainer. Obviously windows... the OSX code is all running under rosetta, unless someone has a nifty CS3 beta or something lying around. What would be more interesting is if someone who writes a cross platform win/mac software could test speed of their app across the two platforms after compiling for intel on OSX...

Re:now for the real question (2, Informative)

FLAGGR (800770) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161338)

None of the OSX code is running in Roseta. Old PPC binaries for apps that haven't been ported yet is running in Roseta. Photoshop I would have to imagine will work on the release date, or near it.

Re:now for the real question (1)

rsborg (111459) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161454)

None of the OSX code is running in Roseta.

Sorry, you misundestood. I meant All the Photoshop OSX code is running under rosetta. Which is most definitely true, unless you work for Adobe and have started compilation of the next mac photoshop version.

Re:now for the real question (2, Insightful)

FLAGGR (800770) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161477)

Considering how much Photoshop is used by mac users (I use gimp however, because I'm cheap) I would assume they're hard at work on it with Apple's devkits.

Re:now for the real question (2)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161503)

Who uses photoshop? Clearly the vast majority of PC users have little use for photoshop.

It's like 3D Studio Max... It was just a neat piece of software to pirate. Not everyone is an artist.

Re:now for the real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161653)

Clearly the vast majority of PC users are slackjawed idiots. They routinely replace their old PCs after a few months because a few hundred megs of spyware has slowed their old system to a crawl.

Basing any opinion off the backs of those folks is dubious at best.

Re:now for the real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161676)

It was just a neat piece of software to pirate. Not everyone is an ar#(*@(*(*@#%!@#(*$( [NO CARRIER]

OFF TO GITMO WITH YOU!!!!

Re:now for the real question (1)

snuf23 (182335) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161511)

Considering that the CEO of Adobe, which makes Photoshop was onstage at Steve Jobs keynote announcing the switch to Intel. And considering his comment to Steve Jobs was "What took you so long?", I'd say the you would be right.

Re:now for the real question (1)

TylerL82 (617087) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161321)

Still not a real question until there's an OS X Intel-native version of Photoshop.

Re:now for the real question (1)

torpor (458) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161364)

Okay, what about which one runs GIMP fastest, then?

that's an equally interesting test ..

Re:now for the real question (1)

Approaching.sanity (889047) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161333)

This is slashdot son

Which OS runs The GIMP faster?

Re:now for the real question (3, Insightful)

CypherXero (798440) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161512)

The GIMP sucks. If you're a true graphic designer, you'll soon realize things you NEED that are only available in Photoshop.

Re:now for the real question (1, Insightful)

delire (809063) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161844)

The GIMP sucks. If you're a true graphic designer, you'll soon realize things you NEED that are only available in Photoshop.
And humans need complex proteins only available in meat, and calcium is only available in milk.

You're doing well - keep the faith. It sells.

Re:now for the real question (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161582)

Just because it's open source doesn't make it better. I found Photoshop easy to use and powerful from the first version I worked on, 2.5 I believe. I've tinkering with Gimp and it's interesting but I'd hate to have to depend on it. My productivity would drop like a rock and most of what I depend on in Photoshop just isn't there. There's nothing wrong with Gimp if you're just tinkering for fun but it's not a serious threat for Photoshop in the pro world.

Re:now for the real question (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161884)

Just because it's open source doesn't make it better.

Yes, it does. Assclown! Why don't you get back in the bedroom and let the wild, untamed Steve Jobs sexxor you in the butt again?

Note to mods: this is obviously flamebait, not a troll. (Moderators are extremely stupid and need to be told what to do.)

This is nice... (5, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161238)

...and this is easy since the Developer Transition Platform is just running a generic Intel motherboard, generic Intel video chipset, an Intel Pentium 4 660 processor with HT, and a standard Intel BIOS (NOT a Phoenix BIOS as has been incorrectly reported elsewhere), but what will really be great is when someone makes a Virtual PC- or vmware-like product (perhaps even one of those products themselves) that is a virtual machine that runs under Mac OS X that allows running essentially any x86 OS at near-full speed, side by side with Mac OS X, without having to reboot.

Since it will be running on x86 hardware, processor instructions do not have to be emulated: they can run natively at near-full speed of the underlying hardware.

Further, though Apple will do nothing [appleintelfaq.com] to stop users from installing Windows on production Intel-based Macintosh systems, it's likely that the production systems will evolve beyond the generic hardware that makes the Developer Transition Platform. Apple itself has said, "Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product." [appleintelfaq.com] This means there may be additional specialized hardware for which Windows drivers and specialized support profiles will not be maintained by Apple. Of course, this isn't stopping anyone from making them, and Intel has said that Intel-based Macs will use commodity Intel processors, chipsets, and other support components [appleintelfaq.com] , but it might not be quite as seamless as just popping in a Windows CD and installing (though it very well could be).

Let's also not forget that the production machines may not be [appleintelfaq.com] - and likely will not be - using BIOS, rendering useless any such conventional PC multi-boot configurations. (But even with EFI [intel.com] or Open Firmware [openfirmware.org] , there's no reason Apple couldn't maintain a robust multi-boot system.)

The point is that a virtual machine product could offer a supported configuration for x86 OSes, including Windows, Linux variants, etc., without the headache and hassle of rebooting into another OS. Sure, dual/multi-booting has benefits, and certainly this will be possible on even the production hardware, but most users would likely prefer a Virtual PC-like environment for running x86 OSes/applications without rebooting.

On this topic, one wonders if Microsoft will be the entity that releases this first. After all, they've already got Virtual PC for Mac, and Virtual PC for Windows (and Microsoft Virtual Server) is exactly this type of virtual machine product, albeit for Windows. On one hand, you can argue that for Microsoft, it's just another copy of Windows sold, so why should they care? But on the other hand, if they make a first-class VM product for Mac OS X that runs Windows (and other x86 OSes) seamlessly at near-full speed of the native hardware, it definitely assists in the sales of more machines designed primarily to run Mac OS X, which could be a poor strategic choice...

But even if Microsoft doesn't do it, let's hope someone like EMC does with vmware.

For more general information, see http://appleintelfaq.com/ [appleintelfaq.com] .

Re:This is nice... (-1, Flamebait)

aralin (107264) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161327)

It runs Mac OS X. Why, oh my, would you want to run anything else? Now tell me?

Re:This is nice... (3, Insightful)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161436)

Games and any proprietary software that is Windows-only.

Re:This is nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161531)

" Games and any proprietary software that is Windows-only."

I've heard off the record that a few higher profile developers are starting to develop towards WINE compatibility and will be pushing this as the standard for gaming.

With the Intel Macs, WINE based apps should run at full speed even under OS X.

Obviously, this is not the way us Mac users would like to see it, but after playing with a hardware linux box that was designed to be an embeded device to run specific formerly Windows Based apps -- I think WINE is ready for the public. The developer had shipped his packaged product to the embeded manufacturer and was unpacking the device when I stopped by and helped him out with it. Incredible device. Incredible translation to Linux using mostly F/OSS technologies. If I could mention the product, you'd realize how far this has gone. It was flawless other than a few graphic glitches that had nothing to do with the operation of the app.

Unfortunately, I can't so rate this article how you will.

Native programming is always the goal, but if I can run games off my Powerbook -- I'll be happy. If not, I still have a PS2 to get my gaming on...

Re:This is nice... (2, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161452)

and certainly this will be possible on even the production hardware, but most users would likely prefer a Virtual PC-like environment for running x86 OSes/applications without rebooting.

Pretty much that is what I expect to do. I would not feel comfortable running the MS mess outside of a good sandbox that can be cheaply and easily destroyed and rebuilt. My hope is that someone will come up with such a sandbox, replacing VPC, which I did not upgrade after MS acquired it. I did enjoy the ability to run NT and Mandrake in thier own little window, and will look forward to doing so again. I specifically would hope someone other that MS would do this.

Re:This is nice... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161695)

but what will really be great is when someone makes a Virtual PC- or vmware-like product (perhaps even one of those products themselves) that is a virtual machine that runs under Mac OS X that allows running essentially any x86 OS at near-full speed, side by side with Mac OS X, without having to reboot.


I'm sorry, but have you ever tried virtualization software. While being great, and definitely a boon in allowing multiple OSes to be run simultaneously, I'm wondering where your getting these perfomance claims.

While it will probably be faster to emulate Windows on a OSX running on x86 or to emulate OSX x86 under Windows than to do the equivalent with a PPC version of OSX, I would expect the performance to be pretty much the same as emulating linux in Windows (if not a bit slower since companies have more experience and optimizations in optomizing linux emulation under windows).

In other words, the performance will be usable, but no where near native performance; and forget about gaming in an emulated OS - ain't happening as long as video cards are being emulated.

bah (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161239)

show off

Summary of instructions (5, Funny)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161240)

Make some partitions. Put the OS of your choice on each partition.

For our next /. story we'll be demonstrating how to install debian on a PC running in a country where the only available electrical power is at 230V.

The benefits are obvious (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161252)

OS X is closed source. This means that it is the work of the devil - its purpose is to make the end users eat babies.

Linux is the only free OS. Yes the BSD lincenses may appear more free, but as they have no restrictions, they are actually less free than the GPL. You see, restricting the end user more actually makes them more free than not putting restrictions on them. You must be a dumb luser for not understanding this.

And you obviously dont have a real job. A real job involves being a student or professional academic. You see, academics are the ones who know all about productivity - if you work for a commercial organisation you obviously do not know anything about computers. Usability is stupid. Whats wrong with the command line? If you cant use the command line then you shouldnt be using a computer. vi should be the standard word processor - you are such a luser if you want to use Word. Installing software should have to involve recompiling the kernel of the OS. If you dont know how to do this, you are a stupid luser who should RTFM. Or go to a Linux irc channel or newsgroup. After all, they are soooo friendly. If you dont know how the latest 2.6 kernel scheduling algorithm works then they will tell you to stop wasting their time, but they really are quite supportive.

Oh, and M$ is just as evil as Apple. Take LookOUT for instance. You could just as easily use Eudora. Who needs groupware anyway, a simple email client should be all we use (thats all we use as academics, why cant businesses be any different).

And trend setters - Linux is the trend setter. It may appear KDE is a ripoff from XP, but thats because M$ stole the KDE code. We all know they have GPL'ed code hidden in there somewhere (but not the things that dont work, only the things that work could possibly have GPL'ed code in it).

And Apple is the suxor because they charge people for their product. We all know that its a much better business model to give all your products away for free. If you charge for anything, then you are allied with M$ and will burn in hell.

Re:The benefits are obvious (2, Informative)

FLAGGR (800770) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161367)

Um, the GPL doesn't restrict the end user more, it restricts (if thats what you want to call it) people developing and extending the software.

Re:The benefits are obvious (1)

guaigean (867316) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161586)

It may be a troll post, but the absurdity and length that they went to makes it slightly humorous.

Re:The benefits are obvious (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161823)

if you work for a commercial organisation you obviously do not know anything about computers. Usability is stupid. Whats wrong with the command line? If you cant use the command line then you shouldnt be using a computer. You sir. Have made my day.

I thought this wasn't going to be able to happen (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161256)

Isn't this what they told us would NOT be possible?

Re:I thought this wasn't going to be able to happe (2, Informative)

FLAGGR (800770) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161353)

No, its what they told us WOULD be possible.

Re:I thought this wasn't going to be able to happe (1)

dotgain (630123) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161465)

They said it would _not_ be possible to run OSX on a plain PC, but the Mac should run everything a PC can.

That was my understanding anyway. So I might be wrong too, but I'm sure Apple would never have intended to release an x86 that CAN'T run other OSs.

Old news... (3, Informative)

hongree (902595) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161257)

see... [thinksecret.com] unrelated news: see... [overheardintheuk.com]

This is nice but... (4, Interesting)

Zweideutig (900045) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161278)

What about 64-bit chips? These Pentium 4-based Macs are 32-bit, I was hoping Apple would be heading in the direction of 64-bit like they started to do with G5. Are they going to use Xeon chips in the high end machines, perhaps?

Re:This is nice but... (0, Redundant)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161305)

No see that would at least make sense...

You know, go with the Pentium4 ... the perfect choice for your nextgen desktop and laptops...

The fact that any sane person rather see a PentiumM over a 4 doesn't stop Apple from their random rampage into techtown...

If I wanted a p4 box I'd buy a p4 box and throw Gentoo on it and avoid the whole "pay Steve money" issue... oh wait, that's what I did...

Tom

Apple will be going with Pentium M (4, Informative)

green pizza (159161) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161351)

No see that would at least make sense...
You know, go with the Pentium4 ... the perfect choice for your nextgen desktop and laptops...
The fact that any sane person rather see a PentiumM over a 4 doesn't stop Apple from their random rampage into techtown...
If I wanted a p4 box I'd buy a p4 box and throw Gentoo on it and avoid the whole "pay Steve money" issue... oh wait, that's what I did...


Huh?
Word on the street says Apple's Intel-powered machines will use Pentium M based CPUs, not Pentium 4.
Intel has stated several times that Pentium 4 doesn't have a whole lot of life left in it, and their roadmaps show enhanced and muli-core Pentium M systems as the future. Plus of all of the Intel benefits Steve Jobs mentioned, most don't even apply to the Pentium 4 (performance per watt, bright future, etc).
I don't know why Apple is using the P4 for their developer systems, maybe because their Intel builds for the past 3 years used P4 rather than P3, Athlon, or PentiumM.

Re:Apple will be going with Pentium M (1, Insightful)

wootest (694923) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161887)

Ten bucks says they'll be using the upcoming 64-bit Pentium ("D", was it?) whereever they can get it running. In the meantime, so that the developers will be able to run any kind of Intel processors, they're using Pentium 4.

In fact, now that I think about it, the word "Pentium" was mentioned only in the context of the Developer's Transition Kit. Everything coming out of Apple regarding this, including the WWDC keynote, has detailed a switch to "Intel microprocessors" - the Xcode build rule even says "PowerPC" and "Intel". If they were only going to use different CPUs in the Pentium family (M for laptops, 4 for desktops), wouldn't they have said "Pentium processors"?

Hm.

Re:This is nice but... (3, Insightful)

ckelly5 (688986) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161366)

You're not thinking big enough.

The dev boxes are for making sure your software runs on intel. There's a lot of work for some of the developers out there, and they need machines now. P4s are cheap and powerful enough to do the job (without giving away all the fun secrets that Steve will undoubtedly use to fuel his RDF ;)) The actual Intel Apple machines you'll start to see won't even be Pentium M - they'll be the next gen chips that aren't on the market yet: Yonah, Sossaman, Merom, and Conroe :)

http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050608.ar s [arstechnica.com]

Re:This is nice but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161431)

If I wanted a p4 box I'd buy a p4 box and throw Gentoo on it and avoid the whole "pay Steve money" issue... oh wait, that's what I did...

You're like a vegitarian ranting in a Butcher shop, nobody cares what you have to say.

Re:This is nice but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161346)

You, sir, are retarded. XEON processors have no special 64-bit extensions beyond what the regular 64-bit Pentium 4 has. Perhaps you were thinking of Itanium. Besides, what do you think being 64bit instead of 32bit is going to do for you? Unless you're trying to address massive amounts of memory, you gain nothing. Any speed improvements you see on 64bit X86 processors are strictly due to other architectural enhancements and NOT to their 64bit nature. Sorry for the flame, just sick of the 64bit misconceptions.

Re:This is nice but... (2, Informative)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161362)

You, sir, are retarded. XEON processors have no special 64-bit extensions beyond what the regular 64-bit Pentium 4 has.

Oh my, this must be embarassing for you:

Intel's first processor to actively implement the EM64T technology is the processor codenamed Nocona, and is being sold as Intel's latest multiprocessor Xeon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM64T [wikipedia.org]

Re:This is nice but... (3, Informative)

allanw (842185) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161421)

He said: beyond what the regular 64-bit pentium4 has. Both chips implement em64t the same way.

Re:This is nice but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161456)

All current Pentium 4 CPU's have had EMT64 for a while now - where have you been?

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentium4/i ndex.htm [intel.com]

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentium_D/ index.htm [intel.com]

If you look at the specs you will see that most 5xx and all 6xx & 8xx models have EMT64

i am pretty sure.... (2, Insightful)

johnpaul191 (240105) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161684)

... that i read the actual chip that Apple will be using does not publicly exist yet. i don't know much of anything about Intel's roadmap and if it will be based on the M series but i thought it was supposed to be a chip that was slated for release Spring 2006.

are people are getting hung up on the fact that the developer machines are not the new Apple machines 1 or 2 years early. in theory everything rewritten for these test machines will work fine on the new ones. would that mean that software may not be fully optimized if these newer chips are something crazy? i have no idea. i guess they will be in the same boat as the rest of the software writing world that wants their products to work on Intel chips.

Be? (3, Interesting)

sootman (158191) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161284)

If it's an Intel box, it should be able to run BeOS as well. :-)

Re:Be? (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161448)

Not the original BeOS, but perhaps YellowTab's Zeta distribution, which is a patched-up BeOS that can run on modern hardware.

That's correct (4, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161775)

Both remaining BeOS users report positive results installing BeOS on these machines.

Re:Be? (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161827)

They mentioned BeOS.

His particular setup triple-booted Mac OS X 10.4.1 (Intel), CentOS 4 and Windows XP.

Right there.. It's the first one listed.

No need to drool (-1, Flamebait)

airjrdn (681898) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161288)

There's no need to drool, just run to your nearest Staples, BestBuy, Circuit City, etc. and pick yourself up a copy of Windows XP.

See, now wasn't that easy?

torrent link for eveyone else (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161313)

there is always the option of dowlnoading OSX86 [mininova.org]

Re:torrent link for eveyone else (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161357)

This is the Mac, not the Intel version of OS X - the apps seem to run fine on my G4...

Re:torrent link for eveyone else (5, Informative)

archer75 (881136) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161745)

That particlar torrent is bundled with a trojan.

Re:torrent link for eveyone else (1)

jericho4.0 (565125) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161803)

On that note, I'm suprised that the x86 Tiger isn't floating around yet. (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't been looking). There are a fair number of developers with the boxes now, one of them must have a roomate with poor judgment...

Ho Kay.. but I wanna know how he even got.. (1)

Halvy (748070) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161323)


Windows to work??! :\

-- The InterNet is a terrible thing to waste, arrest Bill Gates and close down Microsoft immediately.

Now that you can run Windows on a Mac (3, Funny)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161325)

It makes you drool..

LOL, I cant wait for the first round of (serious) posts that think Macs are better than PCs because they run Windows XP.

Zealots are too much.

Re:Now that you can run Windows on a Mac (4, Funny)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161502)

I don't think you'll be seeing that. Macs were better before. Now they've just been sullied. :-)

Re:Now that you can run Windows on a Mac (1)

delire (809063) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161584)


Right.

Rather than supporting the same kind of architecture monoculture that countless numbers of Apple customers, and even Jobs, have scorned vehemently for so many years, I wonder how many will rush at Lenovo's PPC workstations or the AMD64?

Seems Intel hardware is nearly as cheap as sentiment these days.

Re:Now that you can run Windows on a Mac (1)

snuf23 (182335) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161538)

Yeah it's pretty funny. I don't own a Mac, I use a PC and at home I primarily use it for gaming. If an Intel Mac could dual boot to Windows XP it would make it more attractive to me. I like the UNIX underpinnings of OS X (I use FreeBSD and Linux at work) but I'm not about to pay more money to give up Windows gaming.
That being said, I'm sure Apple's Intel Macs will have the same limited set of hardware options as the current Macs.

Re:Now that you can run Windows on a Mac (1)

Heisenbug (122836) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161709)

I think you're late by about a month, but I'll add another one: hardware that runs both OS X and Windows is better for my needs than hardware that runs only Windows.

You sound like you're pretty eager to hear that, so, glad I could help.

It makes you drool... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161334)

... because you are an idiot?

Valuable Information! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161354)

since none of us actually have Mac OSX 10.4.1 for Intel

Was it just me... (1)

daviq (888445) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161407)

Or did someone else here about tri/quad booting on intel mac's a month ago?

The article (in case it goes away) (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161413)

July 21, 2005 Multibooting Intel based Macs - A Step-by-step How to Guide Disclaimer: We have read the NDA from Apple and do not see that this violates it. If we are wrong however someone please let us know and we'll happily remove the following. It is NOT or intention to violate this NDA or to make anyone upset. We are only trying to help others in the community by benefiting from the work we have done

By Ross Carlson [mailto] and Joel Wampler [mailto]

Quick Guide [slashdot.org] | Full Guide [slashdot.org] | Install OS X [slashdot.org] | Install Windows XP [slashdot.org] | Install CentOS Linux [slashdot.org] | Drivers [slashdot.org]

In this guide we'll take you through installing multiple operating systems on the Intel based Developer Macintosh machine. This guide was put together by Ross Carlson [mailto] and Joel Wampler [mailto] to hopefully get you through building a machine that can run every major operating system currently available. This guide takes about 2 hours total. Let's get started...

First there are a few things that you'll need:
  • Decide what OSes you'll install
  • Mac OS X Intel disk (the one that came with the Intel Mac)
  • Windows XP SP2 CD (if you want XP - we tested with a already SP2'ed disc)
  • Windows XP CD Key (obviously, just being safe...)
  • CentOS 4 [centos.org] CD's (or your favorite distro - we got kernel panic's every time we tried Fedora Core 4 and CentOS worked great)
  • CD Ejection Device (otherwise known as a paper clip - just in case...)

Notes:
  • You're going to need a Linux install so you can use it's boot loader for your OS selection menu.
  • We had major issues with Fedora Core 4. At first we thought it was an issue with HyperThreading support, and we did a "linux ht=off" at boot. This worked once but never again?!? Joel was also too lazy to make some Slackware CD's with SATA support so we just went with CentOS since we had it handy.
  • Keep the CD Ejection Device handy - Apple thought it was a good idea to remove the button from the DVD drive so the only way to eject a disc if you need to is with the OS or the CD Ejection Device. So if you can't boot into an OS and you want to remove the CD you'll need that...

Quick Guide: - Return to Top [slashdot.org]
If you're like us and hate reading through pages of crap to get things done here is the quick version of what you'll need to do. We'll explain this step-by-step down below.
  • Boot from the Mac OS X Install DVD
  • Use the Disk Utility within the Installer to delete ALL partitions
  • Use the drop down and select 3 partitions (if you're doing OSX/Windows/Linux) - YOU REALLY ONLY NEED A MAX OF 3!
  • Change the size of the partitions as you desire (make sure to leave room for all your OSes)
  • Set the first and third partition to "free space" - DO NOT FORMAT THEM!
  • Set the second partition to Mac Journeled - name it "OS X" (or what you want)
  • Write the partiton table
  • Exit the Disk Utility
  • Install OS X on the partition you created above (if you have more than 1 disk you did something wrong!)
  • Once OS X is installed and working put in the Windows XP CD and reboot
  • At boot make sure to hit a key so the machine boots from the XP CD
  • Create an NTFS partition on the first empty partition - you'll see the other two - ignore them. The partition you'll create will be called "E:", don't worry...
  • Exit the XP installer (AFTER you've created the partition - DO NOT proceed with setup).
  • Restart XP Setup (remember to press enter on reboot)
  • Now the first partition will be called C: - install to that one - Format NTFS (we recommend quick)
  • Finish installing XP
  • Once XP is installed put in the CentOS 4 disk 1 and reboot (we'll do drivers later...)
  • When the CentOS CD loads press enter to go into setup
  • Choose manual partition - create your partitions (we just did one big / partition and a 1536 swap partition)
  • At the Grub config screen add a choice pointing at "/dev/sda2" called "Mac OS X" - rename the one called "Other" to "Windows XP" (or what you want) - complete the CentOS install
  • Once the CentOS install is complete boot into CentOS
  • using fdisk mark "/dev/sda2" as the bootable partition (make sure to unselect "/dev/sda1")
  • Edit /boot/grub/grub.conf to remove hiddenmenu and timeout (so you can choose)
  • Reboot
  • When CentOS boots hit enter to get the Grub menu. Select the OS you want.
  • Enjoy - think happy thoughts for us :-)

Full Guide: - Return to Top [slashdot.org]
Ok, so you've read the quick guide now let's take you through that step-by-step and fully explain everything.


Install OS X (about 20 minutes): - Return to Top [slashdot.org]
Before rebooting from OS X put the OS X Install DVD in the drive. Reboot. Make sure to watch the machine at reboot so you can hit enter to boot off the install CD - otherwise it will just boot into OS X. Most of this is just like a standard OS X installation. The key issue here is making sure that you partition the disk properly. Basically OS X MUST be on the second partition (from our testing Windows XP MUST be first - correct us if we're wrong). If you're going to triple boot (or more) you'll need at least 3 partitions. If you plan on running OS X, Windows XP, and more than 1 Linux distrobution you still only need 3 partitions here (you can chop up the third one later with Linux). As soon as the installer begins you'll need to load up the "Disk Utility" - by using the "Utilities" menu and choosing "Disk Utility". This will let you select the disk and repartion it as you want. On the left you'll see your drive, mine is a "152.7 GB Maxtor". Highlight this and click "Partition" over on the right. You'll now what to change the "Volume Scheme" to "3 partitions". All three partitions should show as "Untitled 1, Untitled 2, Untitled 3". Select the frist and thrid partitions (seperately) and change the "Format" to "Free Space". Now select the middle partition and make sure it's "Mac OS Extentded (Journaled)". Now set the sizes of the 3 partitions as you want (we did 60GB for Windows - the first partition, 40 GB for Mac - the second partition, and the rest for Linux - the third partition). Partitioning the disk correctly is the most important step so make sure you get this right! Once you've got your partitions sized the way you want click "Partition" in the bottom right corner. You'll get a warning that all data will be destroyed, just click "Partition". Once the partitioning is complete close the "Disk Utility" and return to the installer.

Now that you're back into the OS X install you should see only one drive to install on, at the size you set above. If you see more than one or it's not the size you expected relaunch the Disk Utility and verify everything. DO NOT proceed with this if you're not sure, you'll probably be wasting your time and have to start over later. Once OS X is all installed you can proceed to install Windows XP.


Install Windows XP: (about 45 minutes): - Return to Top [slashdot.org]
Before rebooting from OS X put your Windows XP SP2 CD in (we tested with a already SP2'ed CD since we knew that included SATA drivers - if you use the base XP CD and it works just let us know). Once you've got your CD in reboot OS X.

As the machine boots be sure to watch for the "Press any key...." to boot from the XP CD. The XP install will begin as normal. The key thing in the XP install is selecting the right partition to user. You MUST put it on the first partition on the disk. In our case this is the 60GB one right at the beginning of the disk. You will see a drive labeled "C:", this is really the OS X partition - we CAN NOT use that one. What you'll need to do is select the first partition and click "C" (for create) - take the default size for the partition. You'll now be back at the partition table but your first partition will be labeled E: - this is bad, we can't use that. Now you'll need to press F3 to exit the installer. Don't worry, we'll come back here in a minute and the first partition will become C:

Once you've restarted the installer and gotten back to the partition choice make sure that the first partition is labeled C: - if it is you're good to go, if not check your work. Select the C: partition by clicking enter - you'll get a message about another active partition, just ignore this we'll fix this later when we install Linux. Hit enter to proceed. Format the partition (we always use quick) and continue with setup.

When XP boots into the GUI portion of setup at the end you'll be asked about joining a domain. Don't try it, the network driver won't be loaded at that time so you won't be able to. See below for notes on getting the drivers installed for all the hardware - this is just an install guide for the basic OSes...

Once you've got Windows XP installed pop out the CD (you'll need to right click on the drive in Windows Explorer and choose eject) and put the CentOS 4 disc 1 in. While we're sure your favorite distro *might* work (we actually used RedHat Enterprise Linux 4.0 first) - we picked CentOS since we had it around (and again Joel was lazy and didn't make us a Slack CD with SATA support). we'll no doubt run other distros soon... Reboot.


Install CentOS 4.0 (about 30 minutes): - Return to Top [slashdot.org]
Now that you're booting from the CentOS 4 disk you can just press enter and go. Proceed with a standard CentOS install but make sure you manually partition the drive (using Disk Druid). When you get there create 2 new partitions - 1 swap partition (we made this 1.5GB - 1536) and 1 partition for the OS (named "/" - we made ours 20 GB - again size these based on what you want to do - we chose 20 GB here leaving 30 GB for later in case we want a 4th or 5th OS).

After you've created your partitions you can continue with the installer. The next important thing is the Grub boot loader configuration. You can do this later but it's definetly easiest to do it here. When you get to this page click on "Add" - the Device is "/dev/sda2" we named it "MacOSX". We also renamed "Other" to "WindowsXP" so it would display nicer. We chose to make "Mac OS X" the default OS, you can choose the one you want. After these changes you can proceed and install CentOS the way you want (selecting your packages, etc).

If you selected something other than CentOS as your default OS make sure to hit enter right at boot time so you can select the right OS. You'll need to boot into CentOS first so you can set your bootable partition to the OS X partition os that OS X will boot correctly. If you try to boot OS X now you'll get Windows XP instead (why we're not sure). We're also going to set it so that you get the menu each time to make things easier. So boot into CentOS now. Finish the CentOS welcome stuff.

Once you're booted in CentOS you'll need to edit a few things. First we'll need to change the bootable partition using fdisk (yes there are other ways, this one is just easy to explain). Once you get booted go to a shell and type:

fdisk /dev/sda (to launch fdisk)
a 1 (to turn off bootable for partition 1)
a 2 (to turn on bootable for partition 2)
w

Next we need to tell Grub to always show the menu and never time out (this is optional). Make the following changes:

add # in front of:
#timeout=5
#hiddenmenu

Save and quit. Reboot and you should have the Grub boot menu to select your OS.


Selecting Your OS:
Now that you've got everything installed you can reboot and choose your OS. The Grub boot menu should come up and let you select your different OS. We've setup a forum on our site at Forums [jinzora.org] and we'll do our best to give you a hand and answer any questions for you.


Enjoy!!!
Authors:
Ross Carlson ross@jasbone.com>
Joel Wampler jwampler@iwamp.com>



Driver Installation: - Return to Top [slashdot.org]
Ok, now that you've got your shiny new OSes installed you'll need some drivers. We got everything running great in XP but did have some problems with Audio in CentOS (we wanted to finish this guide so we scratched that for now). We were able to determine that the motherboard is basically a Intel D915GUX [intel.com] board (or at least it's VERY close) and since Intel is Linux friendly you can grab pretty much all the drivers from there. Here are some quick links for you:

General:
  • Motherboard (we think - at least very close): - Intel D915GUX [intel.com]
Windows XP:
Linux:
As we said we didn't finish the Audio driver for CentOS - we just haven't had time yet - we'll post a new story if/when we get that all worked out and as we get other OSes installed on this bad boy. We hope this has been helpful - enjoy!!!

In the old days of OpenStep (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161546)

I remember running NeXTStep 4.2 on white hardware, and it once had its own bootloader that could handle multiboot. I guess they took it out for OSX/White?

But will it be possible with production hardware? (3, Informative)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161517)

Obviously as developer platforms, these boxes bear no real similarity to the Intel based macs that will eventually go into production, but I'm hopeful that the ability to boot Windows on Intel macs may remain even through to production hardware. Obviously there may be issues regarding whatever bios-replacement Apple chooses to use on their hardware, but I'm sure they're also aware of the potential for dual booting macs between Windows and OS X. Whether this is something they want to embrace with their new platform (and I seem to recall Phil Schiller stating that there was no reason Windows couldn't run on an x86 mac) or whether it's something that they consider would 'taint' the Macintosh user experience remains to be seen.

This boot setup must be a dream for some people out there with a gaming rush who would love to be able to get the best of both worlds (although the mac mini has its logical place here) . I only hope this flexibility doesn't get wiped out in production hardware..

tpm: say hello to my little friend... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13161557)

per the article: Other Device: There is also one of the Trusted Computing chips on the board - Windows Update will install the driver for that... sse3 and tpm are the reasons that mac os x/x86 will not run on anything other than apple devkits right now. apple's ATSServer is not compiled for i386 - with good reason: so that the 'rosetta' ppc translator is required. oah750 is 'rosetta', which has hooks to run correctly only through the presence of said TPM. executing ppc binaries manually results in a segfault. no tpm, no rosetta, no mac os x.

Re:tpm: say hello to my little friend... (1)

oldwolf13 (321189) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161834)

but but... I've read all the slashdot posts that said Apple wouldn't go the DRM route... :(

The emperor, he has no clothes. (1)

Stauf (85247) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161782)

Did anyone else notice that it works just like installing more then one operating system on any machine? And arent' the only people with access to these machines supposed to be developers? Wouldn't you sort of expect them to be able to figure this out?

Wow. You can 'partition' a hard drive, and install multiple 'operating systems'. This would only really have been news if you couldn't.

I guess he brought it back up (1)

Zzyzygy (189883) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161886)

This wasn't too well received over at Macslash. There seemed to be some questions as to whether he was in violation of the ADC's NDA, so he took the page down: here [macslash.org]

Good to see he brought it back up.

-Scott

Eh? Windows on Dev Macs? (2)

1336.5 (901985) | more than 9 years ago | (#13161913)

I thought develpers were supposed to IMPROVE technology.

How does it help anyone to put Winblows on the same computer as OS X?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?