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!

Apple Officially Releases Beta Dual Boot Loader

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the at-least-it-wasn't-an-april-fools-joke dept.

909

Slippy Douglas writes "Apparently, Apple has made good on one of the 30th anniversary product rumours. Apple today announced the Boot Camp Public Beta, which allows Intel Macs to easily and legally multi-boot. Boot Camp will be a standard feature in Mac OS X 10.5."

cancel ×

909 comments

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

Linux? (-1, Redundant)

raffe (28595) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065701)

Well if you make ubuntu work on this setup i am of to by a mac. Anybody knows?

Re:Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15065720)

ummm... ubantu has worked for a while now.

Nope. (3, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065729)

All this app does is partition the disk, and burn a CD with the drivers that Windows needs to use Apple's hardware. If you want to run Linux, you're still on your own.

-jcr

Re:Linux? (4, Funny)

ditangquan (526554) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065753)

I hate to say it, but OMG PONIES! and I mean that....yowza.

Re:Linux? (3, Informative)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065841)

Well if you make ubuntu work on this setup i am of to by a mac. Anybody knows?

You've been able to boot linux on the intel macs [pcpro.co.uk] for some time now.

And it looks like someone has ubuntu running on them allready [livejournal.com]

However, I think you're not going to have everything working perfectly, I think the video drivers will only be 2d, your remote won't work, nor will the CD eject button, etc etc etc.

If you've got a bit of money & just want ubuntu, buy hardware from a vendor who supports linux.

If you want OS X and Ubuntu, still buy hardware from a vendor who supports linux - but also wait until you can buy copies of OS X tiger that are not tied to the new macbook or iMacs & install that on your generic hardware.

Re:Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15065861)

Maybe this helps http://www.mactel-linux.org/wiki/Main_Page [mactel-linux.org]

Apple is currently in denial (1, Offtopic)

penguin-collective (932038) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065949)

I doubt we're going to see Linux support form Apple any time soon--they are currently in the denial phase; all big companies seem to go through it when Linux threatens their business. IBM was one of the first companies to get out of it, and it's taken them a few years, but they now have reasonable support for Linux. Sun has gotten out of the denial phase, but they're still hoping they can pull a fast one on Linux. Microsoft is barely out of denial and is making the first signs of accepting Linux as a commercial reality. Apple is still at that stage where they think they can fight Linux with what they think is a "better" product.

Well, You know the saying... (1, Flamebait)

Phantombrain (964010) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065702)

If you can't beat them, join them!

Legally Multiboot? (2, Informative)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065703)

The summary line:
which allows Intel Macs to easily and legally multi-boot. Boot Camp will be a standard feature in Mac OS X 10.5."
should read
which allows Intel Macs to easily and prettily multi-boot. Boot Camp will be a standard feature in Mac OS X 10.5."
There was nothing stopping you from legally multi-booting before.

Perhaps the submitter was getting booting-windows-on-macs with booting-os-x-on-generic-intels - but even that is perfectly legal in most jurisdictions provided you own a copy of OS X.

On a different note, I see on Apple's bootcamp page [apple.com] in the "what you'll need list:"
  • 10GB free hard disk space
  • A bona fide installation disc for Microsoft Windows XP, Service Pack 2, Home or Professional (No multi-disc, upgrade or Media Center versions.)

WTF? 10 GB (well, I guess if the bootloader by itself is 83MB I shouldn't be surprised) and you cant use multidisc or upgrade versions (or even win2k!) I'll wait for the 'hacker' releases thanks Apple!

And on a third note - the screenshots look gorgeous! Would be nice to have grub look this nice (but grub has too much hardware to support I guess)

Re:Legally Multiboot? (1)

dave-tx (684169) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065761)

There was nothing stopping you from legally multi-booting before.

Not contracticting you, but is it possible that there's some aspect of the DMCA that could be interpreted to make this illegal? Sometimes it seems that that law crops up at the strangest times.

Re:Legally Multiboot? (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065850)

Not contracticting you, but is it possible that there's some aspect of the DMCA that could be interpreted to make this illegal?

Uh, did you miss the part where _Apple_ are the ones distributing this software ?

Re:Legally Multiboot? (1)

dave-tx (684169) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065876)

Uh, did you miss the part where _Apple_ are the ones distributing this software ?

I wasn't talking about Apple's release. Of course Apple's would be legal. I was addressing what could possibly make unofficial drivers illegal, which was the point of the parent's question. I thought that was clear.

Re:Legally Multiboot? (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065983)

I was addressing what could possibly make unofficial drivers illegal, which was the point of the parent's question.

Somehow I think if ATI, Nvidia, etc were going to use the DMCA to attack platforms with "unofficial" drivers, they'd have done it long ago with Linux.

Not to mention the rather flaky assumption that the drivers included in this package are in any way "unofficial" - I mean, how "unofficial" can drivers *provided by the hardware vendor* be ?

Re:Legally Multiboot? (3, Funny)

Drizzt Do'Urden (226671) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065879)

He's talking about the hacked drivers and bootloader edition ;)

Re:Legally Multiboot? (4, Informative)

shippo (166521) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065789)

To multi-boot before this you had to use drivers that had been hacked and probably violated someones copyright. This system generates a proper driver disk, and is also probably why the download is 83GB as it'll contain drivers for all of the Intel mac platforms.

Makes me want to pick up that Macbook Pro now!

Re:Legally Multiboot? (1)

DrLex (811382) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065920)

and is also probably why the download is 83GB as it'll contain drivers for all of the Intel mac platforms.
Insert funny comment about dial-up users here.

Re:Legally Multiboot? (1, Informative)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065967)

To multi-boot before this you had to use drivers that had been hacked and probably violated someones copyright. [emph mine]

What? Why do you say that?

BAMBIOS [osxbook.com] is an EFI program (based on bochs bios emulation code) that allows legacy bootloading.

It does not violate anyone's copyright.

why the download is 83GB as it'll contain drivers for all of the Intel mac platforms.

Hmmmmn, I did miss that! 83MB still seems like alot - but I guess its Windows bloat & there's not alot Apple can do about it!

Re:Legally Multiboot? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15065829)

the 10GB requirement is for windows hard disk space. they recommend a minimum 10 GB partition for the windows C drive

Re:Legally Multiboot? (5, Informative)

ahknight (128958) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065854)

Wow. You really can't read.

The 83MB is not the bootloader. It's the EFI module and the Windows drivers for the Apple hardware that you have to burn to CD to install in Windows after you get it going. Read more slowly next time.

Re:Legally Multiboot? (1, Troll)

Oliver Defacszio (550941) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065919)

Would be nice to have grub look this nice (but grub has too much hardware to support I guess)

Yeah, THAT's the problem. You know, the Kooky OSS Klub is such an awesome psychological case study that it's almost too perfect. People really do see only what they wish to see.

Wow, this is incredible (5, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065706)

But, some notes:

- Even the existing http://onmac.net/ [onmac.net] solution wasn't "illegal" or against any Apple or Microsoft license agreement - not saying the summary said that, but it kind of implied it might be

- The HUGE difference with Boot Camp is that it includes Windows XP driver profiles for Apple-specific hardware - including video drivers! Hello games and video intensive Windows software!

- Another big difference is that it includes a live repartitioning tool so the drive doesn't have to be reformatted to install Windows as the current solution requires

- And, it wraps everything up in a nice "setup assistant"-like interface

- It does burn a custom Windows XP installation disc (no, this does not violate any Microsoft or Windows license agreement, as making custom Windows installation discs has been routine in IT shops for years)

- Currently, it looks like it supports only Windows XP SP2, not any multi-disc XP-based installations (or other non-Windows OSes), but since Media Center is already working with the other solution by making a custom installation disc, I have no doubts that it could work with this as well

It's pretty incredible that Apple has decided to do this, to say the least.

However, the true benefit for many people won't come from dual-booting, but from running Windows (or any other x86 OS) in a virtualization environment alongside OS X with no dual booting or rebooting needed.

Virtualization company Parallels [parallels.com] announced that it will be bringing its Parallels Workstation virtualization product to Intel-based Macs [techworld.com] . Parallels is a hypervisor-based (with a kernel module) virtual machine solution already shipping for Windows and Linux, and is the first desktop virtualization product to support Intel VT/Vanderpool CPU "partitioning". It's also only $50. Parallels also has a long list of officially supported guest OSes [parallels.com] , and that's just the ones that are *officially* supported. So either way, we'll have a nice dual boot solution AND a nice virtualization solution!

So Boot Camp will be standard with Leopard...great. What about the thing that a lot of us actually want, virtualization from Apple, rumored to be in Leopard [macrumors.com] ? And not just virtualization to run x86 OSes, but to also run multiple instances of Intel-variants of Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server (*as well* as any other x86 OS)? Now THAT would be the holy grail. Desktop virtualization for things like Windows and Linux/BSD environments, and server virtualization for multiple Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server instances on a single box.

Since Apple has shown it's been officially willing to acknowledge the alternate OS/Windows universe on Intel-based Macs, I actually have a lot more hope for native, integrated virtualization in Leopard as well!

Re:Wow, this is incredible (5, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065751)

It does burn a custom Windows XP installation disc

No, it burns a drivers disk. You still install from the MS install disk.

-jcr

Re:Wow, this is incredible (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065787)

Ah, right you are. As I skimmed it, I misunderstood it to say that it was burning a custom Windows disc with those drivers already in place, but it is indeed using an unmodified installation disc.

Re:Wow, this is incredible (5, Insightful)

mccalli (323026) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065802)

So Boot Camp will be standard with Leopard...great. What about the thing that a lot of us actually want, virtualization from Apple, rumored to be in Leopard [macrumors.com]?

In my opinion, the existance of this tool only strengthens the rumour. If you're going to run a virtual Windows, you still need to have an actual installation of it lying around somewhere. Windows won't run from an HFS+ drive, it will need its own NTFS set-up somewhere - this tool will let you create such a set-up, ready to be dual-booted today and virtualised tomorrow.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Wow, this is incredible (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15065805)

"It's pretty incredible that Apple has decided to do this, to say the least."

Incredible???

OS X is going bye-bye. There is nothing 'incredible' about this next step in the process.

You are living in a fantasy world if you think Apple is going to continue to support the development of an entire OS and software suite to go with it while every other x86 OEM is out there desperately trying to shave pennies off their overhead per system.

Apple is and has been for some time preparing to migrate to Windows. Apple users had better get over that trauma sooner than later. Jobs has a heart of ice and Apple computer hardware and OS/software is a major distraction from the high growth digital media side of the company.

Re:Wow, this is incredible (4, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065827)

No, OS X is not going "bye bye". (And no, Dvorak wasn't "right".)

This is a move specifically calculated to appeal to Windows users, and to increase Mac OS X marketshare and usage (and thus Mac OS X software development), period.

This isn't about Apple "switching to Windows" or becoming yet another Windows PC manufacturer. In fact, it's the furthest thing from it.

Re:Wow, this is incredible (0, Flamebait)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065992)

Actually, it will be going by-by. Apple is evolving into a hardware/media company and to continue with OS and support for such is contrary to the direction. Jobs has got is act together. If you don't believe this, watch in the comming months at the slowdown of software being released on the new platforms. 18-20 months, tops, and OS-X is announce EOL.

"Easily and legally" ? (0)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065714)

What question has there ever been about the "legaility" of dual booting ?

(/First post.)

Just Windows? (1)

JFlex (763276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065715)

Apple's site seems to only specify booting Windows XP. Is boot-camp limited to just that? Or can I boot other x86 OS's as well?

Re:Just Windows? (1)

dave-tx (684169) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065794)

I'm guessing that yes, this is only targeting XP - the driver CD that bootcamp produces would only apply to XP. And if I interpret this whole thing correctly, the drivers are the key to this, aren't they?

Amazing (1)

I_Strahd (791299) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065717)

This will change the face of Apple computers. If and only if everything works properly. I think this could be THE paradigm shift for users.

Strahd

Re:Amazing (4, Funny)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065793)

This will change the face of Apple computers.

Yeah, it's the virtual ugly stick!

Re:Amazing (1)

generic-man (33649) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065985)

Didn't Apple release a "PC card" (not a PCMCIA card, an expansion card) that could run Windows 95 and System 7 side-by-side about 10 years ago? I remember seeing it back then, but apparently Apple didn't consider running Windows a priority until it became a simple matter of driver support.

It's rather superfluous (-1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065721)

If you had a bottomless cup of coffee brewed from the best coffee beans on Earth, why would you ever drink Folgers?

If you've already got Windows or Linux, what's the point of x86 Mac?

Because depending how who you talk to (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065813)

the best coffee beans in the world come out of a cat's butt.

Re:It's rather superfluous (1)

RedQueen.exe (966234) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065820)

For a second I thought I liked you, until I realized you had it the other way around. =P Not that I should talk, I love Macs just from growing up on them, but I've only ever actually owned Linux/Windows setups. =\

Re:It's rather superfluous (1)

DerGeist (956018) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065830)

Well, I'll admit, you definitely live up to your name.

There have been thousands of posts about why MacOS is a nice thing to have. Maybe I like to use an OS that is comfortable on the eyes, updated more often than once a decade, and makes sense from an HCI standpoint? Maybe at work I have programs that only run on Windows, or I like to play games that don't run on Flash. Windows might be a nice thing to have, I mean especially since it runs almost all of the software people use.

No OS is supremely "better" than any other, making the rest look like a pile of horse manure. They are all compromises.

Re:It's rather superfluous (1)

bobcote (304341) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065834)

It's probably Apple's fix for software that isn't available for the Mac but some people still need for business purposes.
Also it will allow some of us who would rather use a Mac, but are forced by some clients, to use Windows software, to have the best machine and a mediocre OS.

Hmm, what happens when the XP part gets a virus? I said "when" not if.

Re:It's rather superfluous (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065898)

Because your bottomless cup of coffee doesn't run many games, and Folgers does?

Because sometimes people send you attachments containing stuff you need in formats only readable by stuff that requires Folgers?

Because you use Folgers at work, and have to take your work home occasionally, and the bottomless cup of coffee is actually incompatable with that? (Actually, I find that an advantage, people don't generally make me work from home, but not all employers are so, ah, "reasonable")

Re:It's rather superfluous (1)

Saint Fnordius (456567) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065909)

Nomen est omen, eh? 'Cause that really was a bad analogy.

A better (but still incredibly weak) analogy would be so say that it would be like offering a brand new car to replace your old clunker, but with an option to use the old car's snow tyres, trailer hookup and other accessories until you can get ones made to better integrate with your new ride.

In other words, the best use for this is for somebody who has a tonne of Windows programmes that he can't just crossgrade to the Mac, either due to costs or because the developer hasn't made a Mac version yet. This will get that person over on to the Mac, and let them gradually give up Windows instead of making a radical swap.

FP? and Why? (1)

luigi6699 (695295) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065725)

FP maybe? What I don't get is WHY apple would do this. Apart from the fact that the community has already added this feature on their own, what benefit does this bring Apple? I love the wording on the page, BTW: "Boot Camp will burn a CD of all the required drivers for Windows so you don't have to scrounge around the Internet looking for them."

Re:FP? and Why? (1)

yEvb0 (904248) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065784)

what benefit does this bring Apple?

they can charge money for it (eventually), either directly or indirectly? They can get windows users to buy their hardware even if they don't want to use their OS (and consequently expose them to OSX even if they wouldn't 'switch' before)?

Re:FP? and Why? (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065785)

More sales?

Why would you buy a run of the mill generic PC that can only run Windows, when you can buy a Mac that runs Windows and MacOS X?

Re:FP? and Why? (1, Insightful)

DerGeist (956018) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065869)

People love macs. They are sexy. The powerbook is the hottest laptop to exist on this PLANET. Everybody wants one. Everybody talks about how amazing they are, with all their kickass features and whatnot. But, no one buys them because:

* They are expensive.
* They run MacOS, which doesn't run many of the programs they want/need to use.

Running Windows is the best thing that could ever happen to a Mac. Now people don't have an excuse, they can buy that hot mini they've wanted or grab a powerbook, and never lose all their favorite programs and games. Brilliant.

Re:FP? and Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15065883)

This is a very good move on Apple's part. It will ease the migration for many from Windows to the Mac os. When you can run the legacy programs from windows, there will be no objection to buying a mac except for the cost. However a mac that can run windows is cheaper than 2 machines, one that can run windows, and one that can run mac os, so this will be a boon to pre-press departments for the newer desktop machines, who often run both o/s

Also if you can run windows, you don't have Office hanging over your head anymore. Microsoft always threatened to stop making Office for the Mac if Apple did anything that they didn't like. Its not like microsoft is going to stop making office for windows.

Re:FP? and Why? (3, Insightful)

Steve525 (236741) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065927)

What I don't get is WHY apple would do this.

One possibility is that there are many people who might be interested in switching to Apple, but won't, because they have a few pieces of software they aren't willing to give up in order to make the switch. This allows those users to switch, but still have access to those pieces of software. (I personally feel that virtuallization is a better route for this, since who wants to have to have to reboot? Still, this at least gives the user an option).

How this actually plays out is anyone's guess. Clearly, Apple doesn't want to become just another Windows hardware vendor. They therefore must position this as a value added to their OS, not the other way around.

Honestly, why bother? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15065726)

You get the stability of Windows with the value-of-money of Apple hardware. Sign me up.

Re:Honestly, why bother? (2, Funny)

twodiabolo (265880) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065982)

Hmm. Windows on expensive hardware. Wasn't that Sony's idea?

April Fools? (5, Funny)

Comics (464489) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065728)

A bit late for April Fools isn't it? Hell is freezing over...

Perhaps they wanted to save this for WWDC (1)

Althazzar (313749) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065732)

But the contest on booting Windows on Macs made them put this out early?

Re:Perhaps they wanted to save this for WWDC (1)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065957)

Actually, they're releasing this late. They were trying to win the contest, but they just finished their solution today.

Just goes to show that it's better to release an ugly solution early than make every nice and pretty and user friendly and get beat to market.

Sign me up (1)

RedQueen.exe (966234) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065734)

I may have to get one of those, I've long had a dream of setting up a box of my own to boot Mac, Windows, and Linux OSes. Now I can get a Mac as my next box and not have to listen to my wife complain. I am kind of sad to see them moving to Intel procs now, but I'm not sure why... =\

Doh! (5, Funny)

toupsie (88295) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065739)

Steve Jobs just missed out on winning $12,000 in the boot XP on a Mac contest!!! And you know the dude needs the cash since he is only paid $1 a year as Apple's CEO. I bet he is just kicking himself right now.

Re:Doh! (5, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065771)

Yeah, twelve grand could probably buy him half a dozen of those black turtlenecks, at least.

-jcr

Re:Doh! (2, Interesting)

OS24Ever (245667) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065795)

Well Narf and Blanka have been pretty quiet about who they are and what they do, maybe they're two apple employees and this was their bonus plan all along.... ;)

Well, There Goes My Business Model (4, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065741)

Damn. We were almost lucky enough to lose a CNET columnist [slashdot.org] . Oh well, I guess the life insurance policy I took out on him will never come to fruition ...

and when (0, Troll)

SolusSD (680489) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065742)

the majority of mac buyers are booting into windows xp/vista because the majority of people use it, apple will have killed a wonderful OS and regulated their systems to nothing more than exotic pc hardware, and we all know how well high end windows notebooks sell. not well. apple has something unique, osx, why encourage people in any way to defoul their mac like that?

Games... (1)

javakah (932230) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065844)

Games are a fairly large part of the computer industry. Most games work under Windows, but not Mac OS X. For that reason, I generally tend to use Windows (and sometimes Linux). That said, I think that Mac OS X is a better operating system. I would prefer to be able to use Mac OS X for my regular daily activities, but still have Windows around for playing games. For me, this is perfect, and I for one plan to switch to a Mac the next time I need to buy a computer.

Re:and when (-1, Flamebait)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065875)

Thanks, SolusSD. It's always interesting to learn that even Mac fanatics admit that Windows is more useful for actually getting stuff done than OS X. And given the choice, most users will choose to run Windows over OS X on their hardware. Maybe instead of selling pretty GUIs, Apple should have sold backwards compatibility, something that Microsoft has been the only company doing right for years.

Re:and when (1)

be-fan (61476) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065979)

Where do you get the idea that most users will run Windows over OS X on their hardware? All those years when Apple was selling a million PowerPC Macs a year, people were buying them despite the fact that they could get a Windows-running PC for substantially less money. Your argument is tantamount to the assertion that Apple computers sell because of the superiority of the hardware, not OS X. That's a stupid idea, because for a long time, Apple hardware was quite inferior and overpriced in many respects.

I know I bought a PowerMac G5 expressly for the purpose of running OS X, even though it was at the same time more expensive and slower than the PC I already had. For the stuff I do (programming, engineering, basic office tasks), the Mac is a far more productive platform than Windows. Its more secure, requires almost zero maintainence, has a high degree of *NIX integration, and runs all the software I want (Matlab, Mathematica, TeX, gcc, etc).

Front Line Report (5, Interesting)

CheeseburgerBlue (553720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065971)

I'm a professional Mac user who runs Windows under Virtual PC regularly. Having access to both operating systems strengthens my appreciation of OS X, not the opposite.

I pay for OS X, because it's relatively suck-free. Windows installs grow on trees.

Why would I ditch OS X? If I wanted a free system I'd go back to Linux.

Re:and when (5, Insightful)

Angostura (703910) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065977)

Because any smart business knows that the key to success is giving the customer what they want. In this case, Apple knows that a proportion of their customer base and potential customer base would like to be able to boot into Windows. Letting them do so easily has the potential to sell more boxes, full stop.

The only reason for Apple not allowing XP booting would be if Apple were truly scared. If it thought that OS X wasn't up to snuff and the OS X applications (iLife, iWork et al) were lame, then it should shy away from Windows booting. Instead it is trusting its technology and giving its users more options.

People who like OS X will continue to buy Macs. People who like Windows *may* now buy a Mac, and learn about OS X

The only real potential downside I see is that app writers get one more excuse not to write Mac apps, but to be honest, I don't see a substantial shift in that from today; views are already well entrenched.

Re:and when (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15065989)

"in any way to defoul their mac"

The word is defile, jack-ass. Even if defoul was a word, it would mean the opposite of what you meant to say, to make something less foul...

Too late for the prize... (4, Funny)

drrck (959788) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065747)

If Apple had really been thinking they would have released this sooner to get all that sweet prize money...

30th Anniversary Letdown (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065773)

For a 30th Anniversary surprise, this is kind of a letdown.

I thought they might release the fastest Apple computer ever, a larger iPod, or even a totally new product altogether.
But I guess we have to settle with Boot Camp Public Beta - hooray.

weird (5, Funny)

trybywrench (584843) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065783)

I'm not sure how i'd feel about having xp boot on my mac. It's like making out with your 2nd cousin, yeah sure you're making out with someone but it just doesn't feel right.

Re:weird (0)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065930)

I tied Cat 5 around my disk and jumped from a tree.
You probably want to grow up to be just like me.

-Peter

They even made the windows logo better. (5, Funny)

sdpurns (877396) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065797)

What I find hilarious is that Apple's interpretation of the Windows logo is the first time it's ever looked good. This is the ultimate switch campaign. It is so on.

It's only half of the solution (5, Insightful)

minginqunt (225413) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065803)

When Intel's Merom/Conroe Core Duos start hitting Macs with Intel VT support, expect Leopard's BootCamp to grow a hypervisor.

Being able to run MacOS X and Windows, at native speeds, will rock my Jesus.

No more apologising for a Mac's inability to play games. W00t.

Re:It's only half of the solution (-1, Troll)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065904)

No more apologising for a Mac's inability to play games. W00t.

Most Macs ship - and have shipped for years - with relatively weak, non-upgradable video cards. I doubt being able to run Windows is going to change that.

Re:It's only half of the solution (2, Insightful)

Dead Chicken (125539) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065961)

While yes they are harder to upgrade then most.

The new Intel Macs + even the G5s have had some pretty powerful + near top of the line vid cards in them.

Re:It's only half of the solution (1)

Hollinger (16202) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065959)

Really? A Hypervisor's a pretty hard piece of software to write. Also, don't expect native speeds; I imagine there must be *some* overhead associated with whatever this "virtualization technology" is. It might be constant, regardless of the number of partitions running on a machine, or it might scale with the partitions. It'll be interesting to find out.

By the way, IBM's had this sort of thing for years. Go look around for information on IBM's System p servers and Phyp [google.com] .

Astonishing development (1)

unterderbrucke (628741) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065806)

I thought this must have been some sort of belated April Fools joke, and I still find it hard to believe after seeing it with my own eyes. They must have gotten a hold of that marketing research data that suggested a majority of Windows users would buy a Mac if they could run Windows on it as well.

This will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of Apple, and the various implications of it are astounding to contemplate. Will Windows end up doing more business through single-licenses? Will this further cripple beleagured PC builders? Could this be a ploy by Apple to force Microsoft in the short term to focus on single-user licenses, and in the long term they'll release OSX for manufacturers and completely push it out of the market?

I think we will all be very surprised what the PC landscape looks like 10 years from now, regardless of what happens.

Re:Astonishing development (1)

kfractal (107548) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065867)

Well, I for one was about to purchase a Dell or Alienware desktop for games. Now I'll likely wait around until the Intel-based Mac desktops show up instead. Just when are they coming anyway?

Re:Astonishing development (1)

unterderbrucke (628741) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065905)

As far as PowerMacs/whatever they're called, supposedly in August/January depending on what Intel chip they want to use. Intel iMacs are out now if you weren't aware.

Uh, someone explain this please? (4, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065812)

which allows Intel Macs to easily and legally multi-boot.


If you buy an Intel-based Mac, what is illegal about dual-booting another OS on it in the first place, hmmmm?

"Legally" (1, Redundant)

dynayellow (106690) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065817)

Yes, this version is legal. Doesn't say anything about other versions being illegal.

Just because you inferred it doesn't mean he implied it.

Dvorak might be right! (1)

yopie (470181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065832)

My next notebook will be MacBookPro and John Dvorak [pcmag.com] might be right!

merging (1)

dubloe7 (966214) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065840)

it seems what we have here is a merging of the giants. first they start using the same processores, now they have osx86 and bootcamp. this will either end with merging, or a bitter and fierce battle over patent/copyright issues that will end up decimating both companies and bring little gain to us, the consumers, if not decrease any gain we might have had.

How long until they ship XP or Vista pre installed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15065871)

Now they only produce windows drivers. How long until they port all their applications over to windows and abandone darwin?

Has anyone benchmarks which mesure thread scheduling, file system etc. performance on the same machine?

Apple keeps XP at arms' length (4, Insightful)

yardbird (165009) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065888)

I love the lukewarm condescension towards XP:


"Apple has no desire or plan to sell or support Windows, but many customers have expressed their interest to run Windows on Apple's superior hardware now that we use Intel processors," said Philip Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, in a voice dripping with disdain.


Also eyebrow-raising, Apple's take on the XP logo:

http://images.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/images/par tition20060405.gif [apple.com]

Will it let me easily multiboot linux etc? (1)

TomorrowPlusX (571956) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065893)

I just scanned the page, perhaps should read it more closely, but I'm curious if it would let me multiboot linux and older versions of OS X?

I mean, sometimes you need to have an older version of OS X ( for testing apps ) and hell, linux would be nice, too.

P.S. I like their word to the wise:

Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it'll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft Windows security fixes.

P.P.S. I read it more thoroughly. Says nothing of linux or other versions of OS X. And it requires an intel mac.

it's from iGod, it HAS to be good ;) (2, Interesting)

swschrad (312009) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065895)

seems I remember that even back in the Copeland days, Apple had tightly held code that allowed winslows to run on the PPC macs. I strongly suspect it's not really a skunk-works operation, but a calculated "black team" Apple has maintained to keep the MacOS folks' feet to the fire. and a Plan B in case they needed allies and/or money fast.

"hey, genius, I can run Windows under two layers of emulation faster than your freakin' routine runs native. optimize or die! I got Pagemaker running without panics and you don't!"

so since there are enterprising uber-nerds with vista alphas running on the Intel macs now, Apple probably figured it was time to protect their kernel and boot loader from hacks and put their own flexible one out.

Well done Apple (1)

OlivierB (709839) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065907)

Now what we really need is Virtualization software to let us run XP in a window, or a compatibilty layer to run applications ala WINE

Why? (1)

Helmholtz (2715) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065910)

I've always been a little curious about the whole "I want to run Windows on my Mac". I understand it from the "lets see if we can make it work" engineering challenge point of view. But from a Mac user point of view, have Mac owners really been pining away for the ability to boot into Windows? I dual booted Windows and Linux on my PC for a long time, using Windows for games. But that got to be such a PITA, since I regularly keep lots of applications running. The thought of "I'll just drop into such and such game for 10-15 minutes" is really hampered by dual booting, IMO. Because it's no longer a case of playing a game for a while, and then returning to your working environment to do "regular stuff", it's now a process of closing everything down, waiting for a reboot, logging back in, etc. It may not sound like much, but I found it irritating enough that I removed my Windows partition completely since I was in booted into it so rarely.

I would think the same thing would be true with Macs. If you have a number of applications open and you want to just "jump into Windows" for 10-15 minutes so you can run such and such app, having to first reboot would make it something that I would hardly ever want to do, even with Mac's significantly faster boot up time. Other than in the case of games, I would rather have a second box sitting on the network that I could remote desktop into and transfer files back and forth via a shared folder. Granted, you do have to have another system for that, but picking up some older system that somebody else is getting rid of because of an upgrade would be perfect, after all the system's whole existence would just be for a few apps.

The whole dual boot Mac thing is interesting, but I just don't see why people would want to use it. Of course what that really means is I can't see why I would want to use it. :)

Too late for the price (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15065928)

Everybody is telling jokes about how late this apple's solution comes, and that they missed the contest.
But the thing is that maybe they just waited for that guy to find a solution and then use it on their own program. Why spend time on a solution if they could just wait for it and then use it? I'm sure those 13000$ are much much cheaper than having some apple's engineers coding their product, and of course in that way they didn't even pay nothing for it. If I remember well the source of the solution to the contest was available too.

Drivers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15065936)

Apple will provide Windows drivers so accelreated graphics should be possible. Cool!

Say Goodbye To The Mac Software Market... (2, Interesting)

GameEngineer (961102) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065941)

This Apple Intel fiasco is like watching a year long trainwreck.

With massive numbers of Mac developers not wanting to or not being able to put out OS X x86 versions of their product/software and now they can just support their entire user base with a single Windows version...

Whoops!

Hope you like Apple i-apps and shareware...

Vista support (1)

mnemonic_ (164550) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065946)

I'm guessing the popularity of this will explode, leading many business and scientific users to switch to Macs. This will probably lead to Apple to add Vista support in mid-2007, even though PC software won't require Vista until 2008 at the earliest.

This will be the key (1)

cejones (574416) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065954)

This will be the key to allow many corporate people to request Mac computers from a corporate setting that requires Windows for most operation. No more flaming talk about how Macs have no games, no software, etc.

Migration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15065955)

Is this being done to ease the migration of Windows users to the Mac platform or is Apple giving up on the Mac to focus on iPod's and multimedia distribution as their new core business and is now providing an easy way for Mac users to start their migration to Windows?

By the way, the strange little sounds... (1)

walter_f (889353) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065963)

... in the background come from the half-a-dozen (or so) "port-to-Mac OS X" software projects that are being dropped today. And this will continue tomorrow, of course.

What's Apple's rationale behind this, if there is any at all?

Walter.

FAGORZ (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15065972)

Boot Loader for Linux, too? (1)

LazyPhoenix (773952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065974)

It would be great to see Apple extend this to Linux support, too. Since this is really a glorified boot loader (albeit a pretty one that finds drivers, too) how much trouble would it be to allow for tri-booting and helping support the F/OS world, too. I don't yet have an intel mac, but this could be handy even on the PPC side.

Apple Humor (1)

605dave (722736) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065978)

Some people don't like Apple's sense of humor, but I do. Here is a quote from the Apple page about the BIOS situation. EFI and BIOS Macs use an ultra-modern industry standard technology called EFI to handle booting. Sadly, Windows XP, and even the upcoming Vista, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS. But with Boot Camp, the Mac can operate smoothly in both centuries.

Think of OS/2 (1, Interesting)

DrXym (126579) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065986)

That let you easily boot into Windows too. Look what happened to that...

Camp boot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15065988)

I think its so funny that they're using a "camp" boot loader to load a straight OS.

-ac

Fools!!! (1, Redundant)

ryanvm (247662) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065990)

Ha fools - they should have done this a few weeks ago and earned themselves $12,000. :-)

What will Mac developers think about this? (4, Insightful)

Have Blue (616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15065998)

Isn't this a disincentive to make Mac-native software? Why develop for a tiny fraction of the market when you can develop for the other 95% and wait for the remaining holdouts to install Windows on their Macs?

Too good not to share (from the website) (5, Funny)

Anonymous Meoward (665631) | more than 8 years ago | (#15066001)

Excuse me while I burn a little karma. I loved this bit from the web page:

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?