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 to Charge for Boot Camp?

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the now-wait-a-minute dept.

OS X 501

An anonymous reader writes "According to a report MacScoop has obtained, Apple will charge current users of Mac OS X Tiger for the final version of Boot Camp that will be released at the same time as Mac OS X Leopard, this Spring."

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

Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (0)

Marcion (876801) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702448)

I recently bought a Macbook to use mainly with Linux, if they charge for bootcamp then I will not upgrade.

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (3, Interesting)

Marcion (876801) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702472)

Ok I just read the article, "there is strong possibility that Apple's boot manager software, allowing to use Windows and Mac OS X in dual boot mode will be sold for $29 to Tiger users." How will they do this when we *already* have bootcamp?

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (4, Informative)

SachiCALaw (856692) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702494)

BootCamp is currently a beta. Apple would charge for the release version.

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (3, Interesting)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 7 years ago | (#17703022)

Charge for undocumented, unsupported software? Who do they think they are, Microsoft?

But really, I see this as a good thing. If they are going to release it as a full retail release with documentation and actual support, then by all means put a price tag on it. It will only take one half hour phone call to support to burn through the $30 retail price, and in the scope of things the price vs additional functionality you will get from a Mac is a mind bending proposition.

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (5, Informative)

Bastardchyld (889185) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702512)

Its because they are selling the final version. This no different than any other public beta. No one expects Microsoft to offer the final version of Vista for free because there was a free public beta.

Nothing to see here.

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (0, Insightful)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702686)

Its because they are selling the final version. This no different than any other public beta. No one expects Microsoft to offer the final version of Vista for free because there was a free public beta.

Why would Apple charge for something that is basically akin to GRUB? Sure, they offer you native drivers for their hardware, but what manufacturer of computer equipment WOULDN'T offer a Microsoft Windows XP driver for their hardware? Other than that, the only thing Bootcamp does is act as a boot manager between OS X and third party X86 operating systems... something LILO has been doing for a decade now. Hell, even OS/2 had a nifty boot manager and so does Windows NT! Get a clue Apple, your reality-distortion-field is fluctuating again.

/mac user for now

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (3, Informative)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702740)

It's probably not a driver thing, it's most likely an EFI thing. Booting is done differently since the current line of Apple hardware uses EFI instead of BIOS, so GRUB (etc) probably isn't compatible. That, and the live partitioning without destroying data that's currently on the drive, which I've never seen before (though I haven't dabbled in the Linuxes in a while).

Mind you, I still think it's a lame cash grab, but I figure that Leopard will include the full version at no extra cost so it won't affect future switchers anyways. When I tested out the current beta version, it worked fine, other than the fact that Parallels was much more useful and it meant having a Windows installation on my MBP. In either case, I needed the hard drive space back. I wonder if they'll put this down to the S-O Act too...

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702902)

Booting is done differently since the current line of Apple hardware uses EFI instead of BIOS, so GRUB (etc) probably isn't compatible.

They're working on that [enbug.org] .

That, and the live partitioning without destroying data that's currently on the drive, which I've never seen before (though I haven't dabbled in the Linuxes in a while).

FIPS shortens FAT32 partitions. Linux had it in 1999.

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (4, Insightful)

shawnce (146129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702900)

Why would Apple charge for something that is basically akin to GRUB? Sure, they offer you native drivers for their hardware
Ok let me know when you have it working and will support customers using it? Surely something less expensive then $29 would win the market ... *rolls eyes*

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (4, Insightful)

Mike1024 (184871) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702952)

Sure, they offer you native drivers for their hardware, but what manufacturer of computer equipment WOULDN'T offer a Microsoft Windows XP driver for their hardware?

Apple.

As is demonstrated by the fact they used PowerPC chips for years, with nary a thought for people wanting to boot windows.

Just my $0.02

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (3, Insightful)

TomHandy (578620) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702530)

What everyone has right now is a time limited beta, I think, so it will eventually expire. I'm not quite sure how that will work though (i.e. if it will prevent you from accessing the other partition, or just not let you create a new bootable partition, etc.).

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (2, Interesting)

Marcion (876801) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702610)

I assume it will try to stop you setting up a new partition, because presumably the boot loader has no idea what the date is.

BIOS knows what time it is (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17703014)

presumably the boot loader has no idea what the date is.

Then why does even PC BIOS know what the date is? Macs use EFI, which is said to be more sophisticated than BIOS.

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 7 years ago | (#17703028)

It's not hard to read dates. In classic IBM PC BIOS it's outright trivial. It should be quite simple in EFI as well, at least compared to the work needed to load up a fake environment for booting an OS that expects a classic BIOS.

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (1, Troll)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702634)

It may well be to assign a perceived discount on Leopard. If Boot Camp is $29, and Leopard w/Boot Camp is $129 dollars, then Leopard is actually only a $100 dollars!

Except that's not true at all, they're just selling something to people that:

a) They already have for nothing, or
b) Is free with an upgraded version of their software.

They've assigned an arbitrary price to a piece of free software in order to make paying to upgrade every 18 months a less bitter pill to swallow.

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (3, Insightful)

dema (103780) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702484)

Although this is still speculation, I wouldn't be surprised given what happened with the 802.11n upgrade. But, I would be willing to bet that Boot Camp will be free as part of Leopard. Sort of how the 802.11n upgrade is "free" if you buy the n-compatible Airport.

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17702596)

Although this is still speculation, I wouldn't be surprised given what happened with the 802.11n upgrade. But, I would be willing to bet that Boot Camp will be free as part of Leopard. Sort of how the 802.11n upgrade is "free" if you buy the n-compatible Airport.

What about people who purchase new MacBook (Pro) computeres? Will n-compatibility be enabled?

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702604)

Mod parent insightful (also the 802.11n upgrade should be "free" if you buy Leopard).

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (5, Insightful)

TomHandy (578620) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702544)

I'm not sure I understand the logic. You have Tiger right now, and you are unhappy that they will be charging (or at least possibly charging) for Boot Camp for Tiger, and that is the reason you will not upgrade to 10.5. But 10.5 will have Boot Camp included as part of its featureset, so it would not cost any more or less than what it would if you had been planning on upgrading to 10.5 anyway. So I'm not sure I understand why charging for Boot Camp for Tiger affects your decision to upgrade to 10.5?

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (2, Insightful)

Marcion (876801) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702586)

I suppose when you put it like that then the $29 charge to Tiger users is just a sop to Panther users ('look you get a "free" version of bootcamp). Although I understand that Apple wants to keep everyone up to date, an easier solution would be a yearly $50 service charge to keep with the updates and then we can forget the version numbers.

But as I said I do not care too much as the main use of OS X is firmware updates, I boot straight into Linux normally.

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (2, Insightful)

masklinn (823351) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702624)

$50/year for updates when you have to (and will) shell out $130 for your update box?

Dude, Apple's in for they money, why would they offer you a service that would yield them $80 less per year per Mac user?

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (2, Interesting)

Toraz Chryx (467835) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702778)

Since new OSX releases aren't annual, $50/year would be more revenue, more regularly, for Apple.

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (2, Insightful)

Vidar Leathershod (41663) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702782)

Umm... People using Panther on their Mac do not have a "Boot Camp"-compatible Mac

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (4, Interesting)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702562)

Just to make something clear that is not so clear in the summary: Boot Camp is included with Leopard, it is free with Leopard. It is BETA on Tiger, and if you wish to use the supported final Boot Camp on Tiger after Leopard is released, you will have to pay.

This is an inducement to upgrade. If they let you just keep BootCamp for free, without wrapping it up in something else you paid for, then the SOX fairy would surely turn them into a pumpkin.

I hope every lobbyist is working overtime to fix this damn GAAP rule. It makes sense on paper, but the implementation is "Retarded".

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (-1, Troll)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702698)

Heh, this bear trap actually sounds like something Microsoft would pull off.

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (1)

Clock Nova (549733) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702730)

Except, of course, that you don't need Boot Camp at all. An intel Mac wil already boot and install from a Windows XP disc without Bootcamp. The only thing Boot Camp is useful for is partitioning a drive without formatting it first and for burning a disc with the necessary drivers. The drivers can be found elsewhere, and the partitioning can be done with other software.

Microsoft should have to charge for IE 7. (1)

ModernGeek (601932) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702736)

Lets see how well IE 7 does if it costs $4.99 to download and install. I think also XP should be sold standard on PCs, with an upgrade fee of $4.99 for Vista.

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17702892)

Is SOX the new bullshit Mac user answer to everything? Go zap your PRAM and restore your permissions!

Wow... Apple charging? Not surprising. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17702852)

Hasn't anyone learned? Apple charges for EVERYTHING. That's exactly what their monopoly power gives them.

OS X users are, literally, a captive audience. They have ALWAYS charged for point release updates which are essentially comparable to Windows' Service Packs... which MS has ALWAYS given away as a free download, or $5 S&H for the CD.

Apple is a complete and brutal monopoly on all things Apple. That will never change, so stop being surprised when they continue to charge for stuff, mkay?

Re:Looks like I'll stay with Tiger then (1)

Divebus (860563) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702874)

I don't want to run Windows at all, I just want to run Windows Apps. Here's to putting faith into things like Crossover.

Is this really a surprise? (0)

Lord Brandon (742830) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702454)

No biggie, it's worthy paying for.

Uh.... (3, Insightful)

AWhiteFlame (928642) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702462)

I'll believe it when I see it.

Really? (-1, Troll)

segedunum (883035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702468)

Did anyone really believe that Apple would make it remotely easy for people to dual boot Windows and Mac OS?

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

TomHandy (578620) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702502)

Umm, yes? Because they have already, and it will be an integrated feature of OS X 10.5? And Boot Camp does in fact do what it claims to do, make it very easy to dual boot Windows and Mac OS? It seems like this is mainly something to give people who don't want to pay the full amount to upgrade to Leopard the ability to at least buy the Boot Camp functionality if that's all they care about.

Re:Really? (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702526)

People that have already used the released(for free) version of boot camp probably do. Have you ever used it? If not, maybe you should try it before spouting off things like this.

Re:Really? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702970)

When they advertise it as a feature and something you might want to do... uhhh ya id expect it.

Same shit different day (1, Flamebait)

peektwice (726616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702490)

They did this with the WiFi update, and now with BootCamp. This should not be surprising, since they put out POINT RELEASES of OSX for $US129.

Define Vista then... (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702576)

Sub-point release?

Re:Define Vista then... (1)

peektwice (726616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702646)

Yes.
I'm not saying anything bad about OSX, just the pricing. If Apple is supposed to be a consumer electronics company, then the software should be free, or at the very least, inexpensive. I'll grant you that OSX costs way less than windows short term and long term, but 130 bucks for a yearly point release is ridiculous. I'm still running 10.3.9, with no plans for Tiger any time soon.

Re:Define Vista then... (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702718)

Ok, well, to be fair the past few "point releases" have been Panther: 2003 Tiger: 2005, Leopard: 2007, so it's pretty damn close to one release every 2 years, not annually. Also, you seem to deride them as "point releases" but that definition is pretty arbitrary. You are getting a lot of extra features. If you don't want/need them, then that is your call, but you make it out to seem like Apple isn't offering anything for the money.

Re:Define Vista then... (1)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702956)

Because a lot of these 'extra fatures' can already be found for free in XP, without the need for paying. Not to mention the fact that Apple tends to lock 10.2 from running new software, and you bet your ass they'll lock 10.3 out when 10.5 comes out. Don't forget that someone a couple posts below you mentioned that there compiler won't let you compile for previous versions of the OS.

Also, Panther came in October 2003, and Tiger came out in April 2005. That's 1.5 years, not two. And Leopard, which is coming out in Spring, is actually considered 'late'.

Re:Define Vista then... (4, Insightful)

John Betonschaar (178617) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702724)

Leopard is not a friggin' point release, it's a major update with lots of new features and major improvements to the core system libraries. The fact that its version number only goes from 10.4.9 to 10.5.0 does not make it a minor update.

Please, can someone explain why it is so damn hard for some people to look past the version numbers and just check out what's new and improved in OS X releases??

Re:Define Vista then... (4, Insightful)

Clock Nova (549733) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702800)

The difference between 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, etc, is the same as the difference between OS 6, OS 7, OS 8, and OS 9. The only reason they are numbered as point releases is so that Apple doesn't have to give up the X logo. Think of 10.5 as Mac OS 16, if that helps.

Re:Define Vista then... (1)

Clock Nova (549733) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702838)

I mean OS 15, of course.

Re:Define Vista then... (1)

iangoldby (552781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702998)

For me the upgrade will probably be worth it just to get Time Machine [apple.com] . (Not that I have important keynote presentations...)

The main thing for me is that it must cope gracefully with using a removable disk as the backup volume. I'm expecting it to keep limited numbers of older file versions on the internal disk, and dump these to the removable one whenever I connect it, doing all this in the background without any user intervention (other than plugging in the firewire connector of course). Fingers crossed...

Re:Define Vista then... (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702746)

Same here - and I even have 10.4 in a box. Had to uninstall it because the compiler couldn't create 10.3.6 compatible binaries (which is still a showstopper because we have large customers on 10.3.6). Thought it was dreadfully expensive at the time for a mere point upgrade... they're doing the same with 10.5 (which probably won't be able to create 10.4 binaries if apple are true to form).

Re:Define Vista then... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17703010)

Anyone still running 10.3.6, especially "large customers", is a fool anyway because Apple requires 10.3.9 for security updates. Although some of the APIs have changed, you can definitely create 10.3.9-compatible software using 10.4. Thanks for the FUD though.

Re:Define Vista then... (1)

goldcd (587052) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702808)

A new OS from Microsoft.
In the past MS have had a habit of dressing up releases (well consumer ones) as new releases, for example Win95->Win98->WinME - but they didn't do this for business systems. I think they released 6 free service packs for NT, 4 for Windows 2000 and 2 (so far) for XP.
As MS have combined the home and office flavours of OS into a single code base, I see no reason for them not to carry on as they have with XP. You buy the OS and the Service Packs/Point releases are free. Vista is quite definitely a new OS and the list price for it (even the upgrade) isn't cheap, but assuming both Apple and MS carry on with their current practices, Apple is going to ask you for more money before MS does (if you wish to use the latest version of their product on your machine).
Just to try to keep this a little more balanced, I have noticed that Apple doesn't really bother to provide any sort of authentification into their point releases. I don't actually know of anybody (maybe I mix in the wrong circles) that bothers buying the upgrades for OSX. Personally I'd prefer to pirate point releases, than embrace some draconian authentification system that might lock me out of my machine on a whim.
Swings and roundabouts I guess, I detest Apple's business model, but the ease of which it can be circumvented does seem the nicer of the two options.

Re:Same shit different day (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702704)

that would be true if it was really a point release. but its not, in comparison to the windows world Apples 10.# releases are the difference between XP and Vista.

The differences between 10, .1 .2 .3 and .4 have been major, but there has not been a complete overhaul of the system it's self, which is why its still a "10" release.

Besides you could pay 120 bucks for major additions to your software every 2-3 years instead of paying 400 dollars every 5 for fixes that should have been in service packs.

"will be sold for $29 to Tiger users" (4, Interesting)

Lord Satri (609291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702496)

Well. I guess most users will want to upgrade to Leopard (isn't that why some use the mac instead of XP/Vista/Ubuntu, the OS itself?). If you don't want to, 29$ looks like a fair price (and you can stick with the beta version afaik if you don't want to shell out money at all).

There are now great alternatives. Boot Camp, Parallels, CrossOverMac, Wine. Competition is great (even if cooperation is better ;-).

Re:"will be sold for $29 to Tiger users" (2, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702950)

Well. I guess most users will want to upgrade to Leopard (isn't that why some use the mac instead of XP/Vista/Ubuntu, the OS itself?). If you don't want to, 29$ looks like a fair price (and you can stick with the beta version afaik if you don't want to shell out money at all).

The question is can all users upgrade to Leopard? They may not meet the higher hardware requirements, or may depend on applications that aren't yet supported under Leopard.

Re:"will be sold for $29 to Tiger users" (1)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | more than 7 years ago | (#17703008)

Hey, we're not talking about Longhorn here.

GAAP made them do it. (2, Funny)

yourpusher (161612) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702506)

Damn accountants.

The reason given will no doubt be (2, Informative)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702510)

Sarbanes-Oaxley compliance. Again. FWIW, I have Boot Camp on this very machine. It's worth an addtional 30 bills, if for no other reason than it opens up the world of Windows gaming to me yet again. If some of the Wine-based alternatives for OS X pan out, then I'll drop Boot Camp. Until then...

No... (1)

AWhiteFlame (928642) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702602)

Why would it be Sarbanes-Oaxley compliance? They've been quite open (and made a few ads) about being able to run Windows on Mac. They didn't release that the cards were actually 802.11n, which is why they have to charge to make them such. It's not the same situation.

No way. (1, Interesting)

severdia (745423) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702516)

Nobody will buy this if they charge for it. There are competing solutions already out which are better than BootCamp (like Parallels), They've already promised this will be part of Leopard and the Boot Camp page still says so: http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ [apple.com] The quote in the right column says "Get a sneak peak at the other new features in Leopard on the Mac OS X Leopard site." That implies this is stil a feature of Leopard and will not be sold separately. MacScoop should stop smoking MacCrack.

Yes way. (2, Informative)

Finque (653377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702536)

iChat AV was an integrated part of Panther, but Jaguar users could upgrade iChat to iChat AV for $29, since it was sold separately.

Re:No way. (3, Informative)

avalys (221114) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702550)

We already know that BootCamp will be part of Leopard. This article is about Apple allowing Tiger users to buy the Leopard version of BootCamp (as opposed to the betas that have been released thus far) for $30.

Re:No way. (1)

Stele (9443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702564)

Nobody will buy this if they charge for it. There are competing solutions already out which are better than BootCamp (like Parallels)

"better" is relative. You can't run hardware accelerated OpenGL applications or DirectX games under Parallels, last I heard. This makes Parallels (and other VMs) rather useless for us cross-platform graphics application developers/gamers.

Re:No way. (3, Informative)

masklinn (823351) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702650)

Apple doesn't care, full Bootcamp will be part of Leopard (for "free"), this is just a boon to the few users who don't want to get Leopard but want a non-beta bootcamp in the end.

They already did it with iChat AV (OSX 10.3 included iChat AV, you had to pay $29 to get it on 10.2) and with the 802.11n update (will be available with the 802.11n Airport, should be included in Leopard, $29 if you stick to Tiger without getting the 802.11n Airport Extreme)

Most people will buy Leopard anyway.

Re:No way. (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702696)

And maybe you should read the article, which says that Boot Camp will likely be sold as an add-on for Tiger and will likely be free for Leopard users. Hell, this was even implied in the summary.

Also, Parallels and Boot Camp target slightly different users. Right now, I would use Boot Camp because it gives full access to the hardware (read: accelerated 3D graphics). I know that Parallels stated that they'd be releasing a version of their virtualizer that provides accelerated 3D, but I'll believe that when I see it. I haven't seen this mentioned on their blog in months.

Re:No way. (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702726)

I'd rather pay 29 bucks for something like Boot Camp that gives me a full featured windows experience, than 60 bucks for Parallels or VM that have no graphics acceleration and poor perpetual support.

Re:No way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17702934)

I'd rather pay 29 bucks for something like Boot Camp that gives me a full featured windows experience, than 60 bucks for Parallels or VM that have no graphics acceleration and poor perpetual support.
And don't forget, it's only $29 if you want to pay for it. There are plenty of places you'll be able to download it for free. You can even find a friend that bought it and just ask them to copy theirs for you and it's 100% free! Consider the $29 a distribution cost like you would pay to buy a pressed CD of a Linux distribution. The underlying software can be distributed free if you want.

/just don't tell Apple *cough*.

Just like iChat (5, Informative)

Finque (653377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702522)

This is nothing new from Apple. I believe when iChat AV came out with Panther (10.3), users of Jaguar (10.2) could upgrade to it for $29. Apple wants you to buy the latest OS from them, but for certain things (iChat, now maybe BootCamp) you can purchase them separately for a previous OS.

Re:Just like iChat (1)

thesupermikey (220055) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702694)

apple still sells 'boxed' upgrades for there bundled software
its called iLife.

Yeah and you expected? (4, Informative)

shawnce (146129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702528)

Apple stated all along the Boot Camp would ship with Mac OS X 10.5 (aka you buy 10.5 you also get Boot Camp). So this left open the question if you would be able to purchase Boot Camp (the final version) for 10.4 or not. This rumors implies that 10.4 users will have the ability to use the release version of Boot Camp... which is a good thing. It was never really likely that Boot Camp would be free for 10.4 users.

Re:Yeah and you expected? (-1, Troll)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702832)

Frankly, I'm pleased to hear it. Apple seems at last to be realizing the recent flood of beige onto the Mac platform has been detrimental to the community. Many Mac apps are losing their polish and careful interaction aesthetics as PC users, as customers and complainers, begin to have a role in their design. Seriously, Firefox? Who but a PC user would prefer Firefox to Safari?

Making it harder for people like that to switch to the Mac is the first step in undoing the damage.

Re:Yeah and you expected? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17702878)

Seriously, Firefox?

I agree that Firefox isn't the best looking or functioning (in terms of Mac UI paradigm) application. I have been hoping that more Mac developers would get involved an make it better but so far not a lot of improvement...

Re:Yeah and you expected? (1)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702946)

I'd rather just see the Mac port of Firefox disappear so as to discourage would-be switchers (at least those who subscribe to PC aesthetics). It's already misleading to describe it as a Mac application when it behaves nothing at all like a real Mac app.

Re:Yeah and you expected? (1)

Jerry Rivers (881171) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702996)

"Seriously, Firefox? Who but a PC user would prefer Firefox to Safari?"

Seriously, you're trolling. MANY hardcore Mac users prefer Firefox over Safari. Get over it and stop pigeonholing people because of their choice of browser.

Re:Yeah and you expected? (0, Troll)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | more than 7 years ago | (#17703048)

I can't think of any "hardcore Mac users" who don't regard Firefox as an abomination, an attempt to force Windows and Linux user interface paradigms, untranslated, onto a platform formerly uncorrupted by such Frankenstenian horrors.

Jon Hicks (the guy who designed the Firefox icon) dumped Firefox as his main browser. He moved on to Safari when it came out. What does that tell you?

Re:Yeah and you expected? (0, Redundant)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17703020)

Everything is free with BitTorrent.

I've seen this before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17702560)

I'm pretty sure they will blame the Sarbanes-Oxley Act [slashdot.org] for that.

Apple milking its users? I'm shocked! (1, Interesting)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702606)

No surprise. This is the same company that charges you $10 for the ability to use their media player to play videos at full screen, for crying out loud. They charge $130 for incremental OS updates every 12-18 months, which is basically a subscription service. They're charging $2 to enable the 802.11n hardware that they will ship.

Apple is the king of "nickel and dime"ing the user for all it's worth.

Re:Apple milking its users? I'm shocked! (5, Insightful)

tshak (173364) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702666)

Apple is the king of "nickel and dime"ing the user for all it's worth.

Right, because the millions of dollars a month they spend on developing OSX should be coming out of the kindness of their hearts.

Re:Apple milking its users? I'm shocked! (1, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702990)

No of cousre they should get reimbursed, but they should bundle ALL the features into the inital cost of the OS, not tons of 'extra charges' that piss off their users.

If they want to charge the extra few bucks upfont that is one thing, but i agree all this garbage with 'fringe costs' is really annoying.

Re:Apple milking its users? I'm shocked! (0)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | more than 7 years ago | (#17703046)

Looks like an Apple apologist came out of the woodwork. Or an Apple shill or astroturfer.
OK, Jobs apologist, name one other company that charges you $10 to enable full screen video playback in their media player.

And some idiots modded your nonsense as +5 "Insightful"?

Re:Apple milking its users? I'm shocked! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17702760)

This is the same company that charges you $10 for the ability to use their media player to play videos at full screen, for crying out loud.

If all you want from QuickTime is full screen, go here [macworld.com] . I'm not sure where you're getting $10 from, because QuickTime Pro is $30, and that gets you a lot more than just the ability to play movies full screen.

They charge $130 for incremental OS updates every 12-18 months, which is basically a subscription service.

Wrong. Truly spoken like somebody who doesn't actually know what they're talking about! Don't be fooled by what looks like a change in the minor version number; what you think are "incremental" updates always have a large amount of new features -- it's closer to uprading from Windows 2000 to Windows XP than applying a service pack. Besides, if you don't want the new features, it's not like the older versions of OS X stop working, and they still provide security updates for them.

They're charging $2 to enable the 802.11n hardware that they will ship.

For legal reasons. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act really is that stupid.

Re:Apple milking its users? I'm shocked! (2)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702772)

charge $130 for incremental OS updates every 12-18 months, which is basically a subscription service.
The difference between .3, .4 and .5 are like the differences between XP and Vista. Just because it takes Microsoft 5 years to make a .1 increase that they just rename the damn thing, doesnt mean it takes others.

Apple's terminology currently for OSs goes, Complete change, major update, minor update. Thus Apples .# is equal to Microsofts name changes, and Apples .#.# is equal to their Service packs.

I honestly dont see why it confuses you Windows people, its not like it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out.

/. knocking commercial software? I'm shocked! (4, Insightful)

feldsteins (313201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702786)

Sweet Jesus, they never described BootCamp as anything but a beta technology from their upcoming major OS release. The fact that Tiger users even have the option at any price to continue using it once Leopard is released is more than they ever stated they would do and more than any Tiger user had reason to hope for. I think everyone needs to stop their goddamned whining about it. I fully expected to have to upgrade to use it. I don't know why anyone wouldn't have had that assumption.

Re:Apple milking its users? I'm shocked! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17702812)

They charge $130 for incremental OS updates

Spoken like somebody who's never even seen a Mac. Windows 98 and ME were incremental OS updates with a price tag. New versions of OS X really are new versions. Do you seriously not see much difference between the latest version of OS X and the original version?

Re:Apple milking its users? I'm shocked! (2, Insightful)

shawnce (146129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702830)

OS updates every 12-18 months

10.4 -> 10.5 - ~24 months
10.3 -> 10.4 - ~18 months
10.2 -> 10.3 - ~14 months
10.1 -> 10.2 - ~11 months

Notice a trend?

Apple made major releases Mac OS X available relatively often to get newly implemented features out to end customers and developers sooner (a good thing) ... in 2001 Mac OS X was a relatively new operating system under going rapid concurrent team development and now that it has matured Apple has stated customers should expect major releases every couple of years as the norm.

Apple will support the current version of Mac OS X and one prior. So in reality customers concerned about the relatively small upgrade fee of $129 (family pack is even a better deal) could skip every other release and hence only purchase an update every 4 years or so (that falls in the Window release time frame and of course the 129 is less then what MS charges). On the time scales of 4 years you also start to get into purchasing new hardware mindset which would get you the latest version of Mac OS X for free.

Re:Apple milking its users? I'm shocked! (1)

Darkinspiration (901976) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702854)

As opposed to the company that charged you to play dvd on they're media player, or the compagnit that charge you to do basic routing on theyre server os... frankly i find the incremental update bit old. Apple is not the only company that charge for incremental update or haven't you heard of windows 98? So they release a new os every 18 months or so, nobody is forcing you to buy. And the next version will have all the feature of the previous and so on. You don't really need to run the latest os you know.

Dual Booting? (3, Funny)

jaymzru (1005177) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702664)

Inconsequential. Dual booting is *so* 2005.
Nobody even turns off their macs anymore, much less boots into a different OS.

Not til they fix it... (2, Interesting)

justin_w_hall (188568) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702684)

Sorry, but I'm not paying a cent for Bootcamp til they make it work 100%. For a bunch of guys that brag about how much better their product is than Windows, they certainly code their Windows-based stuff poorly. Itunes on Windows uses more juice than nearly every other application I run.

Back to Bootcamp... it took almost a solid year for them to release a build of the Windows drivers that actually made use of all of the system's hardware... until then, the two-finger trackpad drag didn't work (and it's still sub-par to the responsiveness of the OSX drivers)... opening the onboard camera blew the OS up...

Even now, running the latest code, when you bring Windows back from hibernate on a Macbook, the trackpad doesn't work at all and a reboot is required to bring it back. It's been tolerable because it's a beta, but put a price tag on it and we have a different situation. They're going to have to put a lot more effort into making a quality product if they want us to shell out for it.

Re:Not til they fix it... (1)

justzisguy (573704) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702814)

I thought the process of working out the bugs is what beta-labeled software is for. You and I should expect all the major issues to be worked out by the time it hits gold.

Re:Not til they fix it... (0, Troll)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702868)

If you think you need to run Windows so badly, just buy a PC and GTFO the Mac. You linear-thinking rectangular types are ruining the platform [arstechnica.com] for the rest of us.

What is the difference between Boot Camp and GRUB? (2, Interesting)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702688)

Excuse my ignorance to all things Mac, but what is the difference between Boot Camp and GRUB/LILO? Can't GRUB/LILO boot a Mac OS?

Re:What is the difference between Boot Camp and GR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17702742)

GRUB and LILO are free.

Re:What is the difference between Boot Camp and GR (5, Informative)

battery111 (620778) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702926)

Well, actually a lot of things. Boot camp isn't simply a bootloader, it is a packaged solution. Upon first running bootcamp, it has you do a destructionless partition on your HD in order to hold windows (if you don't already have a windows part). Then it burns a cd with all the drivers you will need for your mac hardware once windows is installed and looking for drivers for these things. Now yes, it also doeds include a bootloader, but it is designed to be a more "plug and play" solution than having to find and download the individual programs that would do these things, and configure them properly. Just more of a "mac-like" experience.

Re:What is the difference between Boot Camp and GR (2, Informative)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702954)

Boot Camp actually prepares a Windows disc for you including drivers for Apple's hardware. It also partitions the disk. It's basically an all-in-two solution for adding Windows to your Mac (it's all-in-two because you still need a Windows CD, which you still need if you repartition manually). I don't know if the Windows drivers are available any other way.

Re:What is the difference between Boot Camp and GR (2, Informative)

wolrahnaes (632574) | more than 7 years ago | (#17703018)

Intel Macs use EFI instead of the legacy BIOS, so the versions of GRUB and/or LILO shipping with any current Linux distros do not work. GRUB appears to have partial EFI support working on the Mac Mini and LILO has the elilo fork, but at this point neither have made it in to mainstream distros.

What Boot Camp does is it provides BIOS emulation so NTLDR, GRUB, and LILO then work unmodified after the Boot Camp loader has already run. The Boot Camp assistant also provides a non-destructive GUI partitioning tool and allows the user to burn a CD containing all the drivers they'll need for Windows XP on their Mac.

For those only having a few Win32 applications... (5, Informative)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702758)

Check out(http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac) Crossover for OSX. Just a commercial version of WINE, but for the $40-60 I can run office 2k without having to put a Win32 OS on the machine. It feels like it launches a hidden copy of the OS for each application under the covers, so I stay in OSX with my win32 apps running along side the Mac ones. Not a dual OS boot like boot camp, not a vmware OS in a OS like parallels. Just another option. I suspect you could do WINE for free, but the helper stuff was well worth the money, IMHO.

Killing yet ANOTHER Golden Goose? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702816)

Apple really needs to wise-up. Information Week published recently (it'll be online next week I guess) that Apple is gearing up once more for a run at the enterprise again. They really need to take a play from Microsoft's book -- Give some stuff away to get yourself better leverage.

Bootcamp is good leverage. The parallels thing might be even better. In either case, it's a good way to bridge from Windows to MacOS and they want to make it less appealing to do so???

Idiots. They over-estimate their value. It's that kind of thinking that has kept them small and will keep them that way. People are already getting tired of their shiny apple logo'd devices.

Re:Killing yet ANOTHER Golden Goose? (3, Insightful)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702966)

Boot Camp is a feature of Leopard, and a for-pay add-on for Tiger. If Apple isn't in Enterprise now then selling Boot Camp for their old OS isn't going to hurt their play.

Typical Steve (0, Flamebait)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702930)

Cut off his nose in spite of his face.

ahhh ... the joys of ownership (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17702942)

so, how does it feel being blown by Jobs

imho, Apple Corporation sucks

Dont need it: We need only the BIOS emulation (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17702948)

As far as I know Bootcamp is no big deal:
1) It provides a GUI (not very good and limited, it does not support linux) for resizing the patritions. The actual job is done by DiskUtil, which can be used without installing BootCamp.
2) It contains a disk image with Apple Win32 drivers (you can extract the image from the BootCamp installer - just search in the package and you'll find the image somewhere - i remember waguely it is in a .pax archive but I am not sure -anyway it is buried somewhere in the installer)

You dont need BootCamp to instal windows and/or linux. You need a Mac with a firmware which supports BIOS emulation; for windows you also need the Apple win32 drivers.

Boot canmp is an irritating application, You cannot use it if you want to configure a triple boot (OSX/Linux/Windows)- It WOULD NOT LET YOU CREATE a LINUX PARTITION.

Another irritating feature. Apple firmware mistakenly identifies any non-Apple operating system as 'Windows'; for Apple 'Linux' is the same as 'Windows'. That is an offense for each and every Linux user all over the world (Bad Apple, Bad!). Fortunately this can be easily corrected by using a third party bootloader (rEFIt).

For installing Linux and Windows on a Mac you need a Mac with a Bios emulation (if it does not have it just upgrade the firmware). For windows you also need Apple Win32 drivers.

1) Make Win and Linux partition at the command line with DiskUtil.
2) Install Win and Linux.
3) Install the rEFIt bootloader. I would suggest to install it even if you do not use linux, it is much better than Apple's bootloader.

thi5 is goatsex (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17702958)

Over to yet another users all over the smells worseR than a been many, not the

Windows Vista support... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17702964)

Why would you want to run an operating system that Steve Jobs calls a copycat of Mac OS X? Doesn't make sense...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?