Apple releases Boot Camp beta
Wednesday, April 5, 2006 by Island Dog | Discussion:
This is great.
Apple(R) today introduced Boot Camp, public beta software that enables Intel-based Macs to run Windows XP. Available as a download beginning today, Boot Camp allows users with a Microsoft Windows XP installation disc to install Windows XP on an Intel-based Mac(R), and once installation is complete, users can restart their computer to run either Mac OS(R) X or Windows XP. Boot Camp will be a feature in "Leopard," Apple's next major release of Mac OS X, that will be previewed at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in August.
"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. "We think Boot Camp makes the Mac even more appealing to Windows users considering making the switch."
Boot Camp simplifies Windows installation on an Intel-based Mac by providing a simple graphical step-by-step assistant application to dynamically create a second partition on the hard drive for Windows, to burn a CD with all the necessary Windows drivers, and to install Windows from a Windows XP installation CD. After installation is complete, users can choose to run either Mac OS X or Windows when they restart their computer.
Pricing & Availability
The public beta of Boot Camp is available immediately as a download at www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp, and is preview software licensed for use on a trial basis for a limited time. The final version of Boot Camp will be available as a feature in the upcoming Mac OS X version 10.5 "Leopard." Apple does not provide support for installing or running Boot Camp and does not sell or support Microsoft Windows software. Apple welcomes user feedback on Boot Camp at [email protected].
http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Dr Guy
Reply #2 Wednesday, April 5, 2006 10:53 AM
Reply #2 Wednesday, April 5, 2006 10:53 AM
I saw this. Seems they are just caving in to the pent up demand. Not a Bad PR effort.
DJBandit
Reply #3 Wednesday, April 5, 2006 12:30 PM
Reply #3 Wednesday, April 5, 2006 12:30 PM
Nothing like giving more power to your opponent and then claim not to support them.
Alpha Tellurian
Reply #4 Wednesday, April 5, 2006 12:45 PM
Reply #4 Wednesday, April 5, 2006 12:45 PM
Is this the beginning of WinMac, or Macdows, Wincintosh... 
dendillon
Reply #5 Wednesday, April 5, 2006 1:13 PM
I would agree that they are by no means "superior" to any other machine but they do have a uniformity that many Windows machines do not have.
Reply #5 Wednesday, April 5, 2006 1:13 PM
| Apple has superior hardware? |
I would agree that they are by no means "superior" to any other machine but they do have a uniformity that many Windows machines do not have.
Island Dog
Reply #6 Wednesday, April 5, 2006 6:58 PM
Reply #6 Wednesday, April 5, 2006 6:58 PM
| Nothing like giving more power to your opponent and then claim not to support them. |
Apple isn't giving power to Microsoft. What they are doing is making it easier for people to "switch" and to satisfy the needs of some people who need Windows because of work.
cactoblasta
Reply #7 Wednesday, April 5, 2006 10:07 PM
Reply #7 Wednesday, April 5, 2006 10:07 PM
I think it's a great move. Macs rock - they're probably the best system for surfing the net and stuff like that because there aren't any real threats out there yet. But if they can run windows that's even better - you get the (current) security of a mac with the versitility of a PC, and considering Apple's history it'll be easy to use too.
They're not that much more expensive anyway, and they look cooler than any prepackaged PC on the market (unless you happen to think Alienware looks cool).
They're not that much more expensive anyway, and they look cooler than any prepackaged PC on the market (unless you happen to think Alienware looks cool).
Chris TH
Reply #8 Thursday, April 6, 2006 12:31 AM
This is the only thing that sets them apart now IMHO...
That doesn't make much sense - as soon as you boot Windows, those threats that target it will kick-in.
You'd only get the (debatable!) Mac 'security' while running OS-X.
How does running Windows on 'Mac hardware' make Windows easier to use?
Reply #8 Thursday, April 6, 2006 12:31 AM
| they look cooler |
This is the only thing that sets them apart now IMHO...
| there aren't any real threats out there yet. But if they can run windows that's even better - you get the (current) security of a mac with the versitility of a PC |
That doesn't make much sense - as soon as you boot Windows, those threats that target it will kick-in.
You'd only get the (debatable!) Mac 'security' while running OS-X.
| and considering Apple's history it'll be easy to use too. |
How does running Windows on 'Mac hardware' make Windows easier to use?
Jafo
Reply #9 Thursday, April 6, 2006 1:21 AM
Reply #9 Thursday, April 6, 2006 1:21 AM
| How does running Windows on 'Mac hardware' make Windows easier to use? |
Probably done with mirrors....and rockinghorse poo...
Venom339
Reply #10 Thursday, April 6, 2006 1:47 AM
Could this guy get anymore naive? I love the idea, though this guy makes it sound like an iMac would compare in benchmarks to a PC around the same price. Anyway like I mentioned ealier I think it's a step in the right direction, just as I believe that Microsoft should do the same with OSX.
I'd love to see the look on Apple when thier OS is running a 250$ PC
Reply #10 Thursday, April 6, 2006 1:47 AM
| many customers have expressed their interest to run Windows on Apple's superior hardware now that we use Intel processors |
Could this guy get anymore naive? I love the idea, though this guy makes it sound like an iMac would compare in benchmarks to a PC around the same price. Anyway like I mentioned ealier I think it's a step in the right direction, just as I believe that Microsoft should do the same with OSX.
I'd love to see the look on Apple when thier OS is running a 250$ PC
cactoblasta
Reply #11 Thursday, April 6, 2006 3:34 AM
I dunno... I used a PC my entire life until I needed a laptop for study OS and the iBook was half the weight for the same price (yay for student discounts). And it's been a damn good machine. I've dropped it without much more than scratches, it logged into new networks without any fuss whatsoever (in stark contrast to the nightmare I had a few years back setting up a small network of wireless PCs) and its battery lasted for 4-6 hours without a recharge, I could sync my address book and calenders with my phone with literally 2 clicks of the mouse and the iLife suite is pretty cool as well. To be honest I'm a fan of the total Apple package. Despite their generally abysmal specs Macs have some advantages you know, including the fact OSX doesn't support any hardware besides the Apple brand, so you can be fairly certain things are going to work first time (hardly any room for conflicts when there's only one manufacturer).
I have a PC and a mac. The PC I don't use for the internet because I couldn't be arsed putting enough protection in place to survive my housemate's promiscuity. I let her use the mac instead, because that way when she decides it's a great idea to open that exe file she got off some obscure swedish goat porn site or wherever i don't have to spend any time repairing anything. The Mac's obscurity means that the exe won't work.
So naturally I'd have the Windows section walled off from the internet if I had one of the new iMacs. That way I can open whatever program doesn't run on the Mac without filling my desk with two computers.
However on reflection the only thing I use my PC for is games, so maybe it wouldn't work for me... Something to think about anyway.
Yes. Mirrors, rockinghorse poo and the fact that the Apple frontend means I don't have to follow the long list of dualboot instructions currently available for DIY types. Easier for me because I don't have to put as much legwork into installing Windows. Not easier to actually use Windows. I apologise for being so unclear and assuming you'd follow my train of thought.
There's bugger all chance of that. But Macs are shiny, and who wouldn't rather have a shiny computer on their desk that hasn't required a tonne of their time to handcraft?
Reply #11 Thursday, April 6, 2006 3:34 AM
| This is the only thing that sets them apart now IMHO... |
I dunno... I used a PC my entire life until I needed a laptop for study OS and the iBook was half the weight for the same price (yay for student discounts). And it's been a damn good machine. I've dropped it without much more than scratches, it logged into new networks without any fuss whatsoever (in stark contrast to the nightmare I had a few years back setting up a small network of wireless PCs) and its battery lasted for 4-6 hours without a recharge, I could sync my address book and calenders with my phone with literally 2 clicks of the mouse and the iLife suite is pretty cool as well. To be honest I'm a fan of the total Apple package. Despite their generally abysmal specs Macs have some advantages you know, including the fact OSX doesn't support any hardware besides the Apple brand, so you can be fairly certain things are going to work first time (hardly any room for conflicts when there's only one manufacturer).
| That doesn't make much sense - as soon as you boot Windows, those threats that target it will kick-in. You'd only get the (debatable!) Mac 'security' while running OS-X |
I have a PC and a mac. The PC I don't use for the internet because I couldn't be arsed putting enough protection in place to survive my housemate's promiscuity. I let her use the mac instead, because that way when she decides it's a great idea to open that exe file she got off some obscure swedish goat porn site or wherever i don't have to spend any time repairing anything. The Mac's obscurity means that the exe won't work.
So naturally I'd have the Windows section walled off from the internet if I had one of the new iMacs. That way I can open whatever program doesn't run on the Mac without filling my desk with two computers.
However on reflection the only thing I use my PC for is games, so maybe it wouldn't work for me... Something to think about anyway.
| Probably done with mirrors....and rockinghorse poo. |
Yes. Mirrors, rockinghorse poo and the fact that the Apple frontend means I don't have to follow the long list of dualboot instructions currently available for DIY types. Easier for me because I don't have to put as much legwork into installing Windows. Not easier to actually use Windows. I apologise for being so unclear and assuming you'd follow my train of thought.
| I love the idea, though this guy makes it sound like an iMac would compare in benchmarks to a PC around the same price. |
There's bugger all chance of that. But Macs are shiny, and who wouldn't rather have a shiny computer on their desk that hasn't required a tonne of their time to handcraft?
Chris TH
Reply #12 Thursday, April 6, 2006 7:28 PM
All built on a solid structure of Unobtainium...
That's already being addressed by out friendly-neighbourhood trojan/virus writers! Regardless, it's not a real good basis for security...
That's obvious and more power to you, absoultely no offence intended. I have to say that, to look at, they're a marvellous piece of of design and kudos to Apple for that.
Now that it's possible to have the option to run Windows on some stylish hardware it's definitely an attraction... no... must.. resist...
Reply #12 Thursday, April 6, 2006 7:28 PM
| Probably done with mirrors....and rockinghorse poo... |
All built on a solid structure of Unobtainium...
| The Mac's obscurity means that the exe won't work. |
That's already being addressed by out friendly-neighbourhood trojan/virus writers! Regardless, it's not a real good basis for security...
| To be honest I'm a fan of the total Apple package. |
That's obvious and more power to you, absoultely no offence intended. I have to say that, to look at, they're a marvellous piece of of design and kudos to Apple for that.
Now that it's possible to have the option to run Windows on some stylish hardware it's definitely an attraction... no... must.. resist...
Chris TH
Reply #13 Thursday, April 6, 2006 7:31 PM
Back in the day, handcrafting the hardware (the original source for the term "hacking") *was* the substantial attraction of owning a computer. Anything 'shiny' was dismissed as being lighweight...
Reply #13 Thursday, April 6, 2006 7:31 PM
| But Macs are shiny, and who wouldn't rather have a shiny computer on their desk that hasn't required a tonne of their time to handcraft? |
Back in the day, handcrafting the hardware (the original source for the term "hacking") *was* the substantial attraction of owning a computer. Anything 'shiny' was dismissed as being lighweight...
cactoblasta
Reply #14 Thursday, April 6, 2006 8:27 PM
True enough. But I think the virus writers will continue to focus on PCs for the time being; the Mac doesn't have a big enough market share and trojans like the ones available for the mac are difficult to spread. If anything stronger comes up I can always upgrade the free virus protection I use to a paid model which features active blocking. But for the now the simple fact that exes don't run, I don't have Word and the kernel structure is rather different to Windows already blocks an obscenely large percentage of viruses. So for now letting her use the mac is still safer than letting her use a pc, even if it's got an expensive antivirus.
I can deal with the future later.
Yeah. But back then the sort of person owning a computer would never care if it didn't match the decor. That wasn't the point. Today's another world though, and seeing as how practically every computer model on the market will cover the basics style is important.
Reply #14 Thursday, April 6, 2006 8:27 PM
| That's already being addressed by out friendly-neighbourhood trojan/virus writers! Regardless, it's not a real good basis for security... |
True enough. But I think the virus writers will continue to focus on PCs for the time being; the Mac doesn't have a big enough market share and trojans like the ones available for the mac are difficult to spread. If anything stronger comes up I can always upgrade the free virus protection I use to a paid model which features active blocking. But for the now the simple fact that exes don't run, I don't have Word and the kernel structure is rather different to Windows already blocks an obscenely large percentage of viruses. So for now letting her use the mac is still safer than letting her use a pc, even if it's got an expensive antivirus.
I can deal with the future later.
| Back in the day, handcrafting the hardware (the original source for the term "hacking") *was* the substantial attraction of owning a computer. Anything 'shiny' was dismissed as being lighweight... |
Yeah. But back then the sort of person owning a computer would never care if it didn't match the decor. That wasn't the point. Today's another world though, and seeing as how practically every computer model on the market will cover the basics style is important.
Fourth Letter
Reply #16 Friday, April 7, 2006 11:16 AM
Reply #16 Friday, April 7, 2006 11:16 AM
They didn't beat the hackers someone won the prize fund for dual booting on a mac weeks ago.
As to the claim that Apple's machines run XP faster than PCs LOL!! Yeh I think a PC that i built to the same price as a Mac would rub the floor with this claim , My £500 AMD 64 Machine out benchmarks a iMac G5. Mac use lower performance components price them at a premium and optimize their drivers/firmware, they certainly do a good job but i'd rather buy cheaper higher spec hardware. Besides a few bandits are running OSX on their PC's already
As to the claim that Apple's machines run XP faster than PCs LOL!! Yeh I think a PC that i built to the same price as a Mac would rub the floor with this claim , My £500 AMD 64 Machine out benchmarks a iMac G5. Mac use lower performance components price them at a premium and optimize their drivers/firmware, they certainly do a good job but i'd rather buy cheaper higher spec hardware. Besides a few bandits are running OSX on their PC's already
Island Dog
Reply #17 Friday, April 7, 2006 11:42 AM
Reply #17 Friday, April 7, 2006 11:42 AM
| They didn't beat the hackers someone won the prize fund for dual booting on a mac weeks ago. |
They won a "prize" for booting, not for performance. The solution the hackers provided were unstable and difficult to install.
Leauki
Reply #19 Saturday, April 8, 2006 9:44 PM
They are.
Both PowerPC and Intel Macs use a superior firmware, compared to BIOS.
This is apparent in several features that most PCs (or all?) simply don't have:
- A built-in boot manager in the ROM with a graphical interface (you actually click on the icon for the OS you want to boot, before I used OS X full time I had an X icon and a penguin icon to choose from when the machine started)
- Firewire target mode (a Mac can be accessed as an external hard disk by another Firewire-enabled computer, this is helpful to copy data from an old laptop, or to repair a partition, or to quickly copy files, or to fix all sorts of problems)
- Firmware command line (the firmware can be configured via a command line interface, GUI, before the OS starts or while the OS is running, via the network as well; this feature is also useful to fix problems with the OS, you can boot another kernel and get all sorts of features that are usually provided by a good Linux boot loader like GRUB)
- Booting flexibility (at least PowerPC Macs can boot from a boot sector, a file, script or binary, different disks or network drives)
(Note that PowerPC and Intel Macs use different firmware, but the features are common to both.)
Some or all of these features will eventually arrive for x64 PCs, but they do make (and have made) Macs superior, hardware-wise.
Reply #19 Saturday, April 8, 2006 9:44 PM
I would agree that they are by no means "superior" to any other machine |
They are.
Both PowerPC and Intel Macs use a superior firmware, compared to BIOS.
This is apparent in several features that most PCs (or all?) simply don't have:
- A built-in boot manager in the ROM with a graphical interface (you actually click on the icon for the OS you want to boot, before I used OS X full time I had an X icon and a penguin icon to choose from when the machine started)
- Firewire target mode (a Mac can be accessed as an external hard disk by another Firewire-enabled computer, this is helpful to copy data from an old laptop, or to repair a partition, or to quickly copy files, or to fix all sorts of problems)
- Firmware command line (the firmware can be configured via a command line interface, GUI, before the OS starts or while the OS is running, via the network as well; this feature is also useful to fix problems with the OS, you can boot another kernel and get all sorts of features that are usually provided by a good Linux boot loader like GRUB)
- Booting flexibility (at least PowerPC Macs can boot from a boot sector, a file, script or binary, different disks or network drives)
(Note that PowerPC and Intel Macs use different firmware, but the features are common to both.)
Some or all of these features will eventually arrive for x64 PCs, but they do make (and have made) Macs superior, hardware-wise.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Wednesday, April 5, 2006 10:35 AM