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!

Triple Boot on MacBooks Working

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the os-challenge dept.

242

MikeTheMan writes "By now, everyone probably heard that Apple's recently-released Boot Camp software allows users to install Windows XP alongside OS X. But now, people at OnMac.net have discovered how to triple-boot OS X, Windows XP, and Linux. There are instructions on the Wiki for getting Gentoo running, but it is probably trivial to get other distros working as well."

cancel ×

242 comments

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

... but does it run OS/2? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15135187)

(or whatever other OS might be fashinable, *BSD, ...)

Re:... but does it run OS/2? (1)

Agret (752467) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135267)

Yes, it emulates the BIOS so you can install any x86 OS I would assume.

Re:... but does it run OS/2? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15135341)

*BSD, ...

Yes, Mac OS X does run on the Mac Books Pro.

Re:... but does it run OS/2? - Yes, and much more (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15135376)

Not talking about natively booting, but via virtualization, it can run almost anything: http://www.parallels.com/en/products/guest_os/ [parallels.com] And that's just the "officially supported" OSes. Yes, yes, old hat to people running Windows or Linux on x86 hardware, but now on a platform with Mac OS X as well.

Why boot linux here? (1, Insightful)

arexu (595755) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135188)

I'm a linux noob, but i'm not clear why you'd WANT to boot Linux in this case, other than maybe if you are a multi-OS admin.

Re:Why boot linux here? (3, Funny)

pdpTrojan (454023) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135202)

Because OMG then u could be like "I am so free cuz i got teh linux on my computer... u all r micro$oft 'n apple slaves!!!"

Re:Why boot linux here? (0, Flamebait)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135218)

Well maybe you want to, and I know this may come as a shock, ..., have a friggin choice in the matter.

I know if I bought a 2500$ laptop I'd want to be able to run whatever software I want on it. While their hardware looks spiffy (though to be honest no more special than Dell) as a developer I'd have to gouge out my eyes after looking at finder for more than 10 minutes.

Tom

Re:Why boot linux here? (2, Interesting)

NickFitz (5849) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135239)

I do a lot of development on a Mac (in Eclipse, XCode and SubEthaEdit) and I've never found it necessary to look at the Finder for 10 minutes.

Similarly, when developing on a Windows box, I spend very little time gazing upon Windows Explorer.

What exactly is your strategy for development? Browsing the file system does not a developer make.

Re:Why boot linux here? (0, Troll)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135302)

But that's exactly my point. A lot of the hype for MacOSX is how spiffy cool the desktop is.

I don't care about that.

Granted I've never used Xcode I just don't see the appeal of Macs. Specially now with the Intel move. I'll just end up using GNU tools anyways so I could save a pocket of money and still have a machine.

Viva gentoo!

Tom

Re:Why boot linux here? (1)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135439)

Apple's Developer tools are free and use GCC.

Re:Why boot linux here? (1, Troll)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135495)

Correction, they're based on GNU tools but aren't standard.

In particular they broke libtool from the way it works on pretty much any BSD or Linux OS to some craptastic inhouse flavour.

Viva gentoo, viva la choice!

Tom

Re:Why boot linux here? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15135526)

If you have no experience of developing on a Mac, why do you feel the need to comment on it?

The real answer ... (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135363)

The real answer is because you can. Remember some stuff is not because you need to, but because you want to show it can be done.

Let other people work out why the need to.

Re:Why boot linux here? (1)

rhesuspieces00 (804354) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135410)

What post are you replying to? There is no thread called "Why boot linux here?" and your time stamp precedes any posts on that topic. Troll.

Re:Why boot linux here? (1, Flamebait)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135499)

Click the parent [slashdot.org] link you fucking slashdot newbie.

Tom

Re:Why boot linux here? (3, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135224)

some people just don't like OS X or Aqua. To each their own. I personally prefer it. It is well integrated. Finder kinda of sucks, but hey nothing's perfect. At least it's better than windows. and keeps KDE on it's toes. Now if i was running non mac hardware then it's Linux and KDE.

With Apple now shipping x86 computers people are starting to realize that yea Apple hardware really is higher than average PC quality. Apple x86 machines are jumping to the top of the list for performance vs price. Something that Apple Fanatics have been saying for years but no one really believed them.

Re:Why boot linux here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15135253)

With Apple now shipping x86 computers people are starting to realize that yea Apple hardware really is higher than average PC quality.

Looking better and actually being better are two different things. Don't judge a book by its cover and all that. From my experience with my own Macs and people I know, they are in no way more realiable than regular PC hardware. In fact, I would say they are less realiable as I have had more broken Macs and known more people with broken macs than people with regular PC's.

People like you just gloss over it because it comes in a fancy package. It feels better even though it isn't. Shallow is what you are.

Re:Why boot linux here? (2, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135481)

Um I only bought my first Mac with in the last year. I had been switching myself out of windows hell and into Linux for years, so the switch wasn't all that hard. When my last to machines(a custom built athlon and a dell) both died I decided to stop wasting money trying to cobble to together random hardware and let the experts do it for me. As I said I tried Dell but the only thing they have going for them is price. frankly one dell machine my roommate is afraid to reboot(and hence patch) it. it only boots about 10 percent of the time. Others broke down after just a year, or came DOA.

If a package feels better physically then there is a good chance the rest of it isn't bad either. Apple spends more on quality packaging limiting damage to shipping. That doesn't mean there has never been a DOA or bad a Mac. But the percentage is a hell of a lot lower than Dell's. A fact that has been shown numerous times. it's not about making a perfect product it's about making the best one you can not just the cheapest like HP and Dell do.

Re:Why boot linux here? (3, Informative)

n8_f (85799) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135329)

Finder kinda of sucks

Two words: Path Finder [cocoatech.com] .

Re:Why boot linux here? (1)

popeguilty (961923) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135382)

[Something that Apple Fanatics have been saying for years but no one really believed them.] Well, sure. Up until recently, there was no way to test the hardware and not account for OS differences- have you forgotten "Sure, our chips are half as fast, but our OS does more with it"?

HW not better, HW+SW better, that colors percept. (2, Insightful)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135558)

With Apple now shipping x86 computers people are starting to realize that yea Apple hardware really is higher than average PC quality.

Actually that is a misperception due to the fact that Apple hardware + Apple software has fewer problems. With a limitted number of video, audio, ethernet, etc chipsets to support it is far easier to offer a more reliable system. The overall reliability colors the perception of the hardware. When you pop open a Dell you find a rather well designed and assembled system, comparable to what I find inside Mac towers. I've seen/owned enough Apple lemons over the years, seen/had enough bad components in Macs, and see Apple currently shipping some poorly designed but stylish components right now. Would I hesitate to buy yet another Mac? Nope. Neither would I hesitate to buy yet another Dell. Now a local whitebox PC, I'll pass, I would rather by best-of-breed components myself and do a homebuilt system. I wouldn't really save money or get better quality, but I would have a little fun and have made absolutely no compromises with respect to components.

If you would like to say Apple hardware is more stylish then I would agree.

Re:Why boot linux here? (0)

ufoot (600287) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135300)

There's one good reason, the same old reason which makes me run GNU/Linux on PPC hardware: Apple makes very good hardware. Not necessarly the most powerfull, but it's robust, good looking, period. So that's a good reason to buy Apple hardware. Note that it's a matter of taste, some might prefer many other laptops to my good old G4 12", but I just appreciate this hardware, to type mails and program, it fits perfectly. What I want is something solid and reliable that I can put in my bag and that I enjoy typing on.

Then why run GNU/Linux? Well, for me the answer is easy, besides its freedom, that's the system I know best, and whatever hardware I have I might be able to run it. I use a PPC the way I'd use an i386. Note that in the case of a recent Intel-based Mac, this is not relevant since it's the same processor than many other laptops. But then, why run a Linux kernel in the first place? Why use it at all? I guess the reasons that make it interesting to run a Linux kernel on hardware X are still accurate when one asks onself this question "why would I run a Linux kernel on my MacBookPro?".

Developers/ISVs? (3, Interesting)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135505)

It sounds ideal for cross-platform application development --- you only need one machine, and just need to reboot when porting/compiling to your 'non-primary' platforms. Combine with a decent cross-platform API like wxWidgets for best results. Make it a MacBook and you're portable too, and with all three platforms available to give product demos depending on who you're selling to.

lol jews (-1, Redundant)

BisexualPuppy (914772) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135189)

I successfully booted a jew, a wtc, and a penisbird on my ass. Awful.

multiboot (-1, Redundant)

bram (490) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135190)

Couldn't that be done before?

All platforms I heard of are dual/multi bootable.

The only thing which is semi-new is running XP on a mac.

Old news

Re:multiboot (1)

terwey (917072) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135216)

it's probably because of the whole: "OMG IT USES EFI" instead of BIOS thing...

What a waste of money (4, Funny)

Quick Sick Nick (822060) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135193)

I'm not going to buy a macbook until it can run all the major OSes and emulate Xbox, Xbox 360, PS2 and PS3. And it had to have a cell phone built in, as well as an iPod.

And it has to have an awesome case mod too. Because products are never good the way they are released, we always have to mess with them!

Re:What a waste of money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15135220)

Right on! Be happy with what you're given and don't try to improve! It's like I always say, why do people need to head past the Appalachians, anyway? It'll just make it that much harder for His Majesty to control all the riff raff.

Re:What a waste of money (1)

Quick Sick Nick (822060) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135245)

Well, you have to ask yourself if it really improves things. I'd say it complicates things a whole lot more.

"Hey, where's that document I just wrote?"

"Oh, I made that in windows, I'll have to reboot"

Re:What a waste of money (1)

kryten_nl (863119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135334)

"Oh, I made that in windows, I'll have to reboot"

That is the only situation you don't need to worry about. You have a point, but should really think about your examples.

Re:What a waste of money (0)

Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135472)

Well, you have to ask yourself if it really improves things. I'd say it complicates things a whole lot more.

"Hey, where's that document I just wrote?"

"Oh, I made that in windows, I'll have to reboot"


And why exactly did you format your Windows partition as NTFS and not FAT? At the least, make an additional FAT partition for documents.

Re:What a waste of money (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135330)

When it happens it will probably be on Emulation.net [victoly.com] .

Re:What a waste of money (3, Insightful)

crossmr (957846) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135432)

I'd like to see laptops have an "MP3" player feature. Where you slap it in your shoulderbag or backpack and plug in your headphones. A certain directory on the harddrive will be designated the "mp3 file storage" directory and there will be a set of basic external controls on the side of the laptop, say play, next, back, stop, shuffle.
The laptop battery will provide power to the hard drive to spin and to operate the head phones. It would be an awesome use for the person on the go who doesn't want to go gadget crazy.
 

Re:What a waste of money (3, Informative)

RemovableBait (885871) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135463)

You mean like this [microsoft.com] ?

Re:What a waste of money (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135496)

Close, but that seems specifically geared towards text retrieval, not actually turning on the HD to access music and using an audio system. If they built that functionality in, it would be great.

FAT32? (1, Interesting)

squidguy (846256) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135213)

Great... Apple wants you to run the XP partition as FAT32 instead of NTFS... can we possibly make it more insecure?
Caveat emptor: I haven't bought my Mac yet so I can say that I haven't tried this... yet.

Re:FAT32? (3, Informative)

mAIsE (548) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135221)

Since when is any major OS vendor's security reached through obscurity of its file system ? I would contend NTFS is much like th binary word format, a format that helps microsoft alot more than the people that use it.

BTW apple does not required that the partition be FAT32, it is just more compatible and mountable with other OS's.

Re:FAT32? (2, Informative)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135238)

Perhaps the GP believes that a file system with actual file permissions (such an NTFS) might be more secure than one without (FAT32). True, one still has to get the users to stop running as Administrator.

Re:FAT32? (3, Informative)

rikkards (98006) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135291)

Unless you are creating file shares on the machine itself going with NTFS is moot. Assuming the user gets physical access to the machine and yanks the drive, it doesn't matter if you are running Fat32 or NTFS. NTFS permissions are trivial, unless you are using EFS encryption in XP, but then you could always use PGP or Truecrypt or any other 3rd party encryption.

Re:FAT32? (1)

woolio (927141) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135554)

Isn't it suicide to use the built-in encryption in Windows?

My understanding is that when the OS is reinstalled, it generates a use unique identifier for the system and the encryption uses this....

Which means if something bad happens and you reinstall, you can kiss all your encrypted volumes goodbye. (unless you have an (unencrypted) backup)

mnb Re:FAT32? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15135299)

Informative?
GP post is talking about the fact you can assign permissions on NTFS, and not FAT.
I can use NTFS partitions on my *nix box, so just how obscure is it?
I don't think you understand the phrase "security through obscurity."

Re:FAT32? (1)

popeguilty (961923) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135396)

Are we unaware of Captive NTFS? [jankratochvil.net]

Re:FAT32? (3, Informative)

GweeDo (127172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135232)

I created an NTFS partition no problem. Mac OS X even mounted it for me to read from (I didn't try writing though...)

You really should research what you say before spewing lies.

Re:FAT32? (1)

squidguy (846256) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135287)

You really should research what you say before spewing lies.
Lies?
Here's what is in the wiki... Finally, it is best to stick with the advice given by Apple and format the windows partition as fat32. If you use ntfs there is a possibility the GPT/MBR partition tables will no longer agree. However if you do decide to stick with fat32 your windows partition cannot be greater than 32GB.

Re:FAT32? (4, Informative)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135305)

Apple doesn't "want you to" use fat32. They helpfully suggest using it, as mac os x cannot natively write to an ntfs partition, but it can write to fat32. It's a simple practical consideration, not some conspiracy.

Re:FAT32? (3, Informative)

Odiumjunkie (926074) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135237)

Exactly what kind of security is file-system supported on a Macbook? If you're using your Macbook as a multi-user Windows server, using NTFS support of user private data - well, perhaps you should worry less about filesystem insecurity and more about hardware selection. NTFS support of private user data is pretty useless anyway, it's fairly trivial to work around, especially on a windows box.

Re:FAT32? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15135259)

This is probably because there is no support for writing to NTFS.

Re:FAT32? (0, Redundant)

hotdiggitydawg (881316) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135283)

If you were worried about security, you wouldn't be installing Windows. So quit yer whinin'.

Re:FAT32? (2, Insightful)

Benzido (959767) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135488)

That latin phrase you keep saying - I do not think it means what you think it means.

Boot windows (5, Funny)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135217)

While you guys with macs are looking to boot into windows, I'm looking to boot windows OFF of my laptop.

Sometimes I think I should be in comedy. Funny, yes i know.

Re:Boot windows (1)

RevWhite (889559) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135281)

What is even funnier is that you have been modded up, but not as funny!

At any rate, I don't think people are buying Macs just to boot them into Windows instead (a few geeky types are, but they are in the minority). People buy Macs because they are more secure, more stable, or shinier, depending on what is important to them.

Re:Boot windows (1, Flamebait)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135349)

Funny, yes i know.

No, you're not.

Sweet, but what about dual boot? (2, Interesting)

fak3r (917687) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135222)

This is cool, I like it, but I want to dual boot on the Mac Mini; and by dual boot I mean like I have it now on my old iBook -- OS X and Linux. I don't want Windows on it. So, my question, when you boot holding down the 'option' key on the Mac can you make it so you'll have the option of OS X or Linux instead of having to rely on the NT bootloader to choose Linux? I'm sure after that you could hack out the Windows icon so you just have the X and Tux on the select screen.

So, can it be done? Would it require hacking Boot Camp? Did Apple make this easy to modify? Also, I saw that the Linux ATI drivers work; do they support the graphics card in the Minis? I'm waiting for my local shop to get the Mini Duo Core's in, then I'll likely jump in, but I want to dual boot from there, like I do now.

Re:Sweet, but what about dual boot? (2, Interesting)

Jim Hall (2985) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135347)

This is cool, I like it, but I want to dual boot on the Mac Mini; and by dual boot I mean like I have it now on my old iBook -- OS X and Linux. I don't want Windows on it. So, my question, when you boot holding down the 'option' key on the Mac can you make it so you'll have the option of OS X or Linux .. ?

I've played with Boot Camp, but haven't done much with it. [freedos.org] But from what I understand by reading the wiki, you can create a dual-boot MacOSX/Linux system. However, the BootCamp Assistant seems (inferred by TFA) to prefer you have one partition per operating system on the disk space you set up. I don't understand why, though (when I booted FreeDOS, then ran FDISK, it appeared as though the presented "hard drive" had no partitions, suggesting you could create your own partitions.)

If you want to be safe, I'd go ahead and follow the usual instructions with BootCamp Assistant, create a single Linux partition (no swap), and create a swap file in that partition.

At least, I infer that from TFA. As I said, when I experimented with it, it looked like you could create partitions as you would on any PC, when you booted into the "Windows" area (faked BIOS.)

I'll try this on the iMac I have at work in the next week ... see my web site [umn.edu] for updates.

Re:Sweet, but what about dual boot? (4, Informative)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135562)

Do NOT mess with the partitions. Seriously.

Use diskutil's resizeVolume command to create (up to 4) the partitions you need. You cannot have more than 3 "real" partitions on your system (OS X uses #1 for the EFI stuff).

BootCamp works by having an MBR and a GPT partition table simultaneously. There are no partition tools out there that correctly edit both at the same time. Doing it by hand via's OS X's GPT/FDISK tools often fails, as well. I have no idea why.

I'm one of the people who started messing with this triple boot first. Trust me; you don't want to mess with parted or fdisk (in Linux/FreeBSD/whatever). If you do decide to, go to mactel-linux.org, and get the parted patch, and then make sure you use the GPT tool in OS X to create a set of matching MBR/GUID partition tables.

But I promise you; you'll have to wipe your disk if you start messing with these partition tables. Nobody knows the correct way to handle them, yet. More experimentation is needed, and there's a good chance that at any given point in the process you'll corrupt your disk.

Re:Sweet, but what about dual boot? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15135502)

Perhaps someone can answer my question regarding boot camp... there's been a lot of speculation about why Apple released it. I can't help wondering if it is related to the inclusion of a Treacherous Computing TPM. [masternewmedia.org] Apple is rearchitecting its operating system around the idea of trust. The hardware checks the digital signature of the BIOS, the BIOS checks the bootloader, the bootloader checks the kernel... and so on up the software stack. This allows Apple to enforce the use of certain base software if you wish to run their app software (I'm think of DRM for iTunes)... you can't replace or alter (or even see) any of the bits underneath without the machine suddenly not being "trusted", and either not running iTunes or at the very least refusing to play protected content.

Where does "Boot Camp" come into this? I can't help think that Apple *had* to have an official multiple choice bootloader. Without it, developers (who need that capability) would have to rely on third-party ones -- and a third party one would not be signed by Apple... and hence breaking that chain of trust... their machine would not be "trusted", and would be locked out of things like (in future) Apple's update server, or (as I mentioned earlier) iTunes.

So in that sense, Apple simply had to have "Boot Camp" in order not to really piss off developers, or just customers who want to try out other operating systems.

I, for one... (3, Funny)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135226)

I, for one, welcome our new triple-booting overlords.

Re:I, for one... (4, Funny)

Agret (752467) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135257)

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

In Soviet-Russia... (1)

kryten_nl (863119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135310)

In Soviet-Russia, newsletters about triple-booting overlords subscribe YOU!

OS X... why Linux (3, Insightful)

DiscoNick (743960) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135250)

Why would one bother using Linux if OS X offers all the features (well ok, most) of Linux, and the only feature Windows has -- some games (WoW anyone?). I've finally made the switch to Ubuntu on my work PC, but would be just as productive in the OS X environment w/o the need to ditch Aqua. Besides, XOrg can easily be installed in OS X...

WoW Mod:Speed up World of Warcraft Load Times! [filenuts.com]

Re:OS X... why Linux (0)

4e617474 (945414) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135285)

Why would one bother using Linux if OS X offers all the features

I've got a Linux box (PII - 300Mhz) on my LAN that handles all the BitTorrent traffic so that my main machine never has to have any ports open, and it has an FTP server that runs exactly when I want it to. I don't think installing on a $20 thrift store PC and doing anything useful is an OS X feature. The retail OS CD's are dual-layer DVD's! And that doesn't include iLife! And I haven't run across an ad for web hosting that offered an OS X server. Sometimes the right tool for the right job means something else, even if what you've got going is really good.

Re:OS X... why Linux (1)

rhesuspieces00 (804354) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135321)

What does that have to do with running Linux on a Macbook Pro? The question is not why would one install Linux, ever. Its why would one want Linux and OS X on the same machine, when OS X will run most linux software already anyway?

Re:OS X... why Linux (2, Informative)

compm375 (847701) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135335)

Since when is a Intel Mac a $20 thrift store pc. It might be in several years, but I believe the grandparent was asking why someone would want to run Linux on an Intel Mac now.

Re:OS X... why Linux (2, Informative)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135427)

Sounds a little defensive to me. I think the point of the grandparent is that there's little point in rebooting to get to Linux if you already have an OS X capable computer. A good load of free software works on OSX as UNIX and X11 programs. Last I heard (last year) Linux on a laptop isn't likely to sleep or hybernate well, and doesn't necessarily have good hardware support for features typically found in a laptop. I know a few people that have Linux desktops and servers, but have a Mac laptop because of this.

Linux does have plenty of value for the reasons you state.

And I haven't run across an ad for web hosting that offered an OS X server.

They exist, but there's probably not much point in it as OS X server offers admin tools that might not be available in a sub-server instance. An OS X web server would be just like any other UNIX server.

Re:OS X... why Linux (2, Informative)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135442)

So if you had a brand spanking new Intel Powerbook why would you need to triple boot it?

That was his actual question.

The answer of course, much like putting linux on an iPod even though the Apple firmware offers better MP3 playback, is becasue you can.

Re:OS X... why Linux (1)

DjCheeto (465905) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135353)

Different strokes for different folks, now go away troll

Re:OS X... why Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15135416)

Because KDE beats hell out of OS X when it comes to managing more than 5 windows.

Re:OS X... why Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15135421)

I just bought single core intel macmini. OSX on it feels much slower on it than linux system on my older hardware. It takes longer to start any application, menus are not as responsive. Just for that reason I find linux desktop nicer. I use same apps on both linux and osx.

Re:OS X... why Linux (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135465)

I hate feeding the troll, but I still will reply.
Under Windows there are lots of special apps that don't run in OSX or Linux:
Autocad
3ds max
Multisim
Dreamweaver/Flash (I think)
Hundreds of games...
And running them in Wine doesn't work at all or requires a lot of hacking. Even if you do make the software work, it will look pretty alien (widgets, filesystem-tied stuff, themes etc.) in a Linux or OSX environment. And if you use only one Windows-only app, what's the point of using an OS other than Windows? My dad uses 3ds max and Autocad and he won't suddenly forget all he knows and switch to QCad/Blender. He will have a steep learning curve, during which he won't be doing anything useful, and he won't benefit much in the end because Autocad has a lot of features no free (or linux/osx-supported) *CAD aplication has, and these features are actually *useful*.

Now if only... (0, Troll)

ZSpade (812879) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135254)

I could install a version of OSX on my Toshiba Tablet PC, and have it support the pressure sensative display.

You see, unlike just about anything else, I would PAY for that. I sincerely hope this is a step in that direction for MAC. As of right now their nothing more than a glorified Dell with their own proprietary OS.

Re:Now if only... (1)

rhesuspieces00 (804354) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135344)

As of right now their nothing more than a glorified Dell with their own proprietary OS. Thats like saying a porsche is nothing more than a glorified VW bug with a better engine.

Re:Now if only... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135390)

Thats like saying a porsche is nothing more than a glorified VW bug with a better engine.

Porche president: Eep! Who leaked?!

Re:Now if only... (1)

Agret (752467) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135401)

Thats like saying a porsche is nothing more than a glorified VW bug with a better engine.
Well you sure picked a bad analogy to use, since when did a porsche use the same components as a VW bug?

Re:Now if only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15135451)

"Well you sure picked a bad analogy to use, since when did a porsche use the same components as a VW bug?"

Maybe not a bug, but VW and Porsche do have a business partnership and extensively share the same components in vehicles.

Re:Now if only... (3, Interesting)

lezerno (775940) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135501)

"The first Porsche, the Porsche 64 from 1938, used many components from the Volkswagen Beetle." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche [wikipedia.org]

USA Today: Boot Camp will start exodus to Windows (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15135279)


USA Today: Boot Camp will start exodus to Windows [usatoday.com]

From the article: "Further, your IT department now has to support two operating systems, which -- given that the majority of IT pros aren't Mac people -- means hiring or training. But let's say you're blessed with a staff that already knows both. You're still faced with two OSs, two sets of problems, and double the headache. Oh, joy..."

IT Pros != IT Depts (0, Troll)

mzieg (317686) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135337)

your IT department...the majority of IT pros
Like I'd believe anything from an article which equated "IT Pros" with an "IT department." IT pros create things. IT departments install and support things...typically with laughably miserable results.

IT pros try to come up with new ways of using technology to improve business efficiency and open new markets. IT departments specialize in explaining why "no you're not allowed to do that [because it would make our job an eensie bit more difficult and we might actually have to think.]" (Chip on my shoulder? You bet!)

No, the folks you find in IT departments typically aren't "Mac people", if by "Mac people" you mean people who are interested in trying something different simply for the sake of finding out whether an alterative approach might actually be better once in awhile. On the other hand, "IT pros" recognize that a heterogenous environment is a *richer* environment, because every platform has unique strengths and contributes meaningfully to the enterprise.

Re:USA Today: Boot Camp will start exodus to Windo (1)

chowhound (136628) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135364)

Ah, USA Today, that bastion of journalistic excellence.

Mac boots you (-1, Redundant)

AcgiGlyph (668545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135288)

In Soviet Russia, Mac boots you!

Perfect opportunity for NetBSD. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15135294)

This is a perfect opportunity for the NetBSD crowd. They're experts at creating an OS that runs very well on very specific machinery. With some effort and direction, they could produce the premiere alternative UNIX for these Mac systems.

We haven't seen a comparably standardized system since the SGI Indy, and that was over a decade ago. This time around the system is far more affordable, too. It'll lower the participation barrier for your average Joe and Jill Developer.

Re:Perfect opportunity for NetBSD. (1)

Cal Paterson (881180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135489)

What do you mean? NetBSD _does_ run on these macs.

MacIntel - CHRP? (4, Interesting)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135319)

From my perspective, the Macintel computer is the fulfilment of the CHRP dream from the mid-1990s. For those too young to remember, CHRP (pronounced Chirp) was an idea from Apple that stood for Common Hardware Reference Platform. Such a computer would exist outside of Operating Systems - it could and would run anything. It never really got off the ground, for obvious reasons.

I always thought CHRP was a great idea, and it seems to me that the MacIntel platform running bootcamp IS the reincarnation of CHRP. I think that if Apple can run the price of their hardware down enough and incorporate things like card readers etc. into the front panel, they could really increase market share in a big way. For example:

Here's an interesting idea, that could save a company vast sums of cash:

Buy apple hardware, and triple boot the suckers, and wave bye bye to the vast collection of test boxen that clutter the labs.

Granted: specific software that is dependent on specific hardware that doesn't fly with the mac platform won't be testable, but some huge vast percentage of what is out there doesn't operate that way, and this would especially be true of internet based applications.

So, instead of using a old Intel box that's been re-grooved to do Linux (initial cost, say, $1000) and ANOTHER Intel/AMD box for Windows (say, another $1000) and an Apple computer to test the Apple build (say, $1500), you now just buy the MacIntel box, ($1500) and install Windows and Linux and you're done.

This multiboot thing will be especially impressive as Microsoft continues along this idiotic path of multiple flavours of Windows. God ferbid they just make one REALLY GOOD version that does the job properly (a la OSX).

But this Bootcamp thing could save some companies millions of dollars. They could upgrade their labs to Apple computers, run bootcamp, and say bye bye to HP/Dell/Gateway/etc. forever, fulfilling the beautiful vision of CHRP.

Works for me.

RS

Re:MacIntel - CHRP? (3, Insightful)

rhesuspieces00 (804354) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135370)

Thats not bad, but virtualization is coming and that will be better.

Imagine, instead, an 8-core Mac, possibly with a handful of drives attached, running OS X as its primary OS, with some subset of {Win98, Win2000, WinNT, WinXP, Linux (your choice of distribution), *BSD, etc.}, simultaneously each in a window of its own. Ideally, you could even virtualize another layer of OS X as a testing sandbox. If any OS goes down, you kill the process and load from some previously saved memory state. Screw rebooting.

Re:MacIntel - CHRP? (1)

salimma (115327) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135379)

Although CHRP was supposed to be a non-PC platform, whereas Apple's new approach is "PC Plus": you can run things a PC can run, and youc an run Mac OS too.

Re:MacIntel - CHRP? (2, Funny)

crunchly (266150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135393)

I think they might be close to finishing up Pink [everything2.com] as well.

Re:MacIntel - CHRP? (2, Interesting)

Maserati (8679) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135397)

Macs have always been good in multi-bhoot configurations. Way back in the dotcom days our QA department handed us a list of 45 PC configurations (OS and browser combos) and 14 Mac system. This request was made in all seriousnous, as if even a dotcom could come up with the office space for an extra 60 machines. We got the PC test builds done with removable hard drives (Orb drives - easier to swap than IDE removables) . For the Macs I just partitioned the drives 8 ways, named them appropriately and installed the OS and browser required on each. Startup Disk.cdev was a great bootloader for that situation.

These days VMWare or another virtualization environment would be the better choice.

Re:MacIntel - CHRP? (1)

JazzCrazed (862074) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135419)

Did they create this platform, or did they just merely jump on the same boat as the rest? A common hardware platform seems to me to have existed already when they switched to x86. I was already dual booting and virtualizing Linux and XP, after all... It was just as simple as compiling OS X for x86 to have common hardware for all three - in which case I wouldn't credit Apple with creating the platform; just joining in the party.

But I'm too much a n00b to know the specifics on CHRP, so feel free to fill in with any dissenting technical details.

Re:MacIntel - CHRP? (2, Informative)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135441)

Lets see:
* CHRP was an attempt to replicate PC-Clone economics for PowerPC
* CHRP cratered
* PowerPC became uneconomic
* Apple belatedly switches to PC-Clones
* You claim that Apple PC-Clones are reincarnation of CHRP.

No, that doesn't add up.

(I will agree that Apple will sell a lot of dual-boot boxes, espciallally when they start bundling Windows.)

Re:MacIntel - CHRP? (3, Insightful)

Florian (2471) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135456)

Such a computer would exist outside of Operating Systems - it could and would run anything.
You must have got something wrong. CHRP simply was a specification for an open standard PowerPC hardware platform, just as the IBM PC is an open standard for x86-based hardware.

Wow I didn't see this coming... (1)

Xedium (894323) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135336)

Installing multiple OSes onto a Mac? This'll be child's play soon, and it's even more trivial to install tons of operating systems onto a generic PC. I can already install Mac OSx86 (sublega), Windows, a couple flavors of Linux, FreeBSD, etc. etc. etc. on a generic computer. Mac's funny GPT is just a little obstacle.

This might be a silly question, but... (2, Insightful)

TooMuchEspressoGuy (763203) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135351)

...why might one need to triple-boot three OS's?

I'm not trying to flame or anything, but it seems like you can get pretty much anything you want out of simply dual-booting OSX and Windows without throwing Linux or BSD into the batch.

Re:This might be a silly question, but... (0)

teslar (706653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135383)

I suppose it makes sense for linux/ *BSD fanboys who absolutely swear by their distribution, but need Windows for gaming and are considering giving OSX a shot. Or maybe they just need Windows for gaming and OSX for Photoshop or Garageband, but will do anything else under linux.

Also, I suppose a lot of *nix programs which haven't been specifically ported to OSX will be easier to compile/install and run under a pure linux/BSD system.

Thirdly, if you're normally a linux user, but nicked the Windows version of Mathematica and the OSX version of Photoshop from your Uni/workplace, you'll also need the 3 OSes :)

Re:This might be a silly question, but... (4, Insightful)

teslar (706653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135392)

Oh, and cross-platform developpers will naturally be happy. One machine, 3 systems.

"Get it Working" (2, Insightful)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135386)

For life to get easier, we get OUR tools RIGHT for the job and "Get it Working", meaning efficiently.

Lots of different work is out there for different people.

For me, Boot Camp simply means efficient work with one fewer laptops being paid for, maintained & carried around, while still being able to run at virtually native hardware speed...no more, no less.

End of Subject.

Re:"Get it Working" (1)

Old Thrashbarg (963675) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135545)

"Boot Camp simply means... being able to run at virtually native hardware speed..." Virtually? Nothing virtual about it - you boot Windows on a Mactel and you're running at full hardware speed.

EFI (1)

m0RpHeus (122706) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135449)

While booting Linux using this method is good, it's still just a hack. A cleaner solution would be booting Linux using EFI on Intel Macs (and probably PCs using EFI in the future). We'll just have to wait until elilo's x86 port is finished.

Re:EFI (1)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135541)

It's finished, and it still works post-bootcamp-csm. I haven't tried the latest FGLRX with it, though.

Use rEFIt->elilo, and pay some attention when you build the kernel. It does work.

AFAIK, the primary limitation is not elilo; it's the kernel's EFI support. While it supports a reference implementation, there are enough hacks in Apple's version that some bugfixes/minor workarounds are necessary.

very nice (2, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135453)

This is an excellent step. Now if only someone can get the overcomplication down a little, maybe so that Linux boots directly from EFI and I don't have to choose "windos" first each time I actually want to boot Linux - that's just torture, isn't it?

only on apple machine. (0, Troll)

Truekaiser (724672) | more than 8 years ago | (#15135457)

would somthing as trivial as finding out how to triple boot the machine become news..

yu0 fail it (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15135493)

ISH PERHAPS
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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