With "boot camp", apple lets Windows boot natively on their computers. They just provide some additional drivers like all the other PC-vendors. Rumor has it that beginning with 10.5 they'll have Windows and OS X running side by side.

No way anyone will develop pro-software for OS X any more.

I guess that's it.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

.
It will probably run Vista when that comes out, so after all this time my own computing future seems to be taking shape.
.

Very interesting...

We have it running on a MacBook Pro. pretty sweet considering all those years of suffering through Virtual PC and emulation.

I do notice some *slightly* choppy graphical performance when dragging windows but I think that's just Windows being Windows (behaves the same way on my roomate's PC). Plus I used it for like 2 minutes.

Note that due to Windows' FAT 32GB limitation, if you want to be able to access the partition and files from a Mac OS X boot session, the Windos partition will need to be 32GB max.

So...this will make it interesting. Who needs to invest in coding Mac OS X versions for their software?

This is a strange period.

The return of the mighty one.

How is it shaking.

Well Apple stock surged over $6 a share on the bootcamp news.

I never left.

I severely cut back my online usage/posting for several reasons.

All is well.

quote:

Originally posted by the man in black:

So...this will make it interesting. Who needs to invest in coding Mac OS X versions for their software?

Nobody. But a lot of people are ordering Microsoft's Visual Studio right now.

Well, I have to say Apple did it right this way, little late as usual, but right.
Hackers had already shown that Apple is crippling their machines by not letting them book XP. The huge demand for that ability (or at least the huge media-effect of it) has forced Apple to take steps. An Apple under pressure finally moves :-)

Ah yes! The Macintosh just keeps getting more Mac-like every day, doesn't it?

It sort of makes you feel a little sorry for those unfortunate users of other brands. Those poor bastards are running Windows on an Intel box while our favorite computer runs Windows on an Intel box. What could be more Mac-like?

I guess the next step to complete the conversion of the Macintosh into an even more Mac-like computer is to remove OS 9 running in Classic and replace it with OS X running in Windows Classic.

This will have really beneficial effects for all Mac lovers. Just like OS 9, Apple can stop wasting money on developing OS X and concentrate on its core business -- marketing consumer entertainment gizmos that it neither invents nor manufactures.

All true Mac lovers will, of course, cheer this decision. They will point to soaring stock prices as strong evidence of the clear computing innovative superiority of Apple Computer Corporation. What other company could have come up with the idea of running Windows on an Intel box? Name one!

Ah, well, name five hundred, then!

quote:

Originally posted by HighHopes:

This will have really beneficial effects for all Mac lovers. Just like OS 9, Apple can stop wasting money on developing OS X and concentrate on its core business -- marketing consumer entertainment gizmos that it neither invents nor manufactures.

My favorite reaction of the mac-dumbo's (sorry for that) is:

This will make switching much easier !

The level of stupidity in the community has reached truly mind-boggling levels.

It actually WILL make switching easier. For a lot of people who wanted to try out a Mac but didn't want to leave Windows completely behind now they can dual boot. No longer is there a significant barrier to entry for switchers anymore.

As for developers now abandoning creating professional OS X apps, thats not going to happen. All this time they could have told people to just install Virtual PC instead of creating OS X versions of their programs yet they haven't done that. There's no reason why that will change now.

ahhhh, brother mighty... embraces the blackness. I like it.

I have to totally agree with the part about "this is a strange period." Strange indeed. All the more odd because it comes right at the threshold of a major change in Windows itself.

This is the new switcher campaign... uh, only it's no longer about having to friggin' SWITCH. It's "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." I find it absolutely hilarious that the very X-Men who so totally embraced OS X, are now applauding something that's pretty much gonna kill OS X or have developers abandon it like rats on a sinking ship.

I can see it all now, dual operating systems, one for a few casual use newbie activities, one for work. Apple could be setting itself up here. I mean, what happens if and when software simply runs better on a Mac when it boots into Windows? You think they're going to let that happen? What if surfing is faster? Suppose Photoshop Creative Suite crawls on the Mac but screams on Windows? If I were Software developers, I'd start thinking about a "reverse switcher" software deal, where you can convert Mac licenses to Windows.

The only thing I read that seems to even TRY to remind us how supposedly great our one time "ultra-modern, super fast, incredibly reliable, power of UNIX" Mac OS is, is the admonition that we're on our own as far as viruses and malware and all that goes if we decide to run Windows. In other words, they just let slip that they're lazy.

Imagine if they had said something like: And get this, Windows runs SAFER on a MAC than on a PC! With "bootcamp", you have the best of both worlds, running Windows natively, with the improved security of a Macintosh.

THAT would have been interesting.

This, of course, was chilling:

quote:

I do notice some *slightly* choppy graphical performance when dragging windows

quote:

This will make switching much easier !

LMFAO! Yeah, for whom?

quote:

No longer is there a significant barrier to entry for switchers anymore.

Yeah, not like the prohibitive price of Macs in relation to PCs or anything, lol.

The reason there's no friggin' barriers is because instead of offering INCENTIVE in the form of something BETTER... higher quality or more reliable, all you do is offer the same crap, different box. Which is more proof that it's all about eye candy and marketing and not about a quality operating system. Proof that OS X never SURPASSED anything. Not the legacy, not Windows.

If I were Apple, I'd be all about being able to run Windows and OS X side by side. Something like Virtual PC that actually worked. I don't care if it takes a whole extra motherboard in the tower. Being able to go from one to the other effortlessly, without a reboot. With no cut in performance. That would be something.

But it's not gonna be that way. It's going to be the same old same old. Yeah, it'll RUN... but what you're really getting is crappier Windows running on hardware you have to pay a premium for, while OS X continues to get crappier and more choked with interface. I see it like all we're doing is adding another level of interface. This time it just looks more like Windows.

Umm Windows is insecure because that is the nature of Windows. How could Apple possibly make Windows more secure when Microsoft can not even do that.

Adobe products once they go Universal binary will run exactly the same on Intel Mac hardware in either XP or Mac OS X. There should be no speed difference on the same CPU.

Right now it is safe to say XP on Mac Intel hardware will run Adobe products faster. Adobe on Intel Macs under Mac OS X is using the Rosseta emulator.

The reason Adobe ran faster on Mac's was solely because of PowerPC with Altivec.

I can see business professionals who might have wanted to own a Mac laptop but never have because their laptop had to run Windows. Now that obstacle is gone. To buy a PC laptop with the feature set of the MacBook Pro will cost you the same amount of money.

quote:

Originally posted by RicoX:
Umm Windows is insecure because that is the nature of Windows. How could Apple possibly make Windows more secure when Microsoft can not even do that.

Adobe products once they go Universal binary will run exactly the same on Intel Mac hardware in either XP or Mac OS X. There should be no speed difference on the same CPU.

Right now it is safe to say XP on Mac Intel hardware will run Adobe products faster. Adobe on Intel Macs under Mac OS X is using the Rosseta emulator.

The reason Adobe ran faster on Mac's was solely because of PowerPC with Altivec.

I can see business professionals who might have wanted to own a Mac laptop but never have because their laptop had to run Windows. Now that obstacle is gone. To buy a PC laptop with the feature set of the MacBook Pro will cost you the same amount of money.

Windows is not more secure or insecure than OS X. Beginning with XP Service Pack 2, Windows is pretty secure. Windows 2003 Server is even better. Vista will be another improvement. I'm not a Windows fan, but i face facts.

Of course things will run faster on Windows. The graphics drivers alone make a huge difference. OpenGL on OS X sucks badly. World of Warcraft runs 40-45 frames per second on an Intel-Windows-Apple-PC, with OS X on the same machine you get 30-35 fps.

Or how do you like that one:

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/CB95_XPvsTigerMBP183.gif

Such stuff is going to creep up every minute now on the net. Forget about OS X.

You are right when you write that AltiVec gave macs a huge advantage over PC's, but that's over.

Start getting used to a one-OS-rules-all world on the desktop for the time being.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: klapauzius,

quote:

It actually WILL make switching easier. For a lot of people who wanted to try out a Mac but didn't want to leave Windows completely behind now they can dual boot.

Well Yeah, I guess so. Whatever you say.

Back in the days when there was a different computer that was named "Macintosh" I would every so often run across the odd person who claimed that he always wanted to try one of dem ther' Macs if only it ran Windows rather than the Mac OS.

Made me laugh. I guess he liked the Mac except for that Mac operating system and that odd Motorola microprocessor otherwise it would be fine. Those things and the high price were the only things holding him back from trying out one of them Macs.

That was then and this is now. I have a much cheaper alternative for those hoards of "switchers" who were just waiting, counting the moments, for the Macintosh to run Windows on an Intel box. Rather than spending big bucks to purchase a Macintosh from Apple they can invest 59 cents in the purchase Magic Marker and write the name "Macintosh" on the computer they are now using. The effect will be exactly the same and look at the money they'll save.

Klappy no surprise Windows runs games faster. Games are written to run for Windows. There are no games written for the Mac. All Mac games are ported PC games. Funny how the Xbox 360 is using Altivec to supply more pixel crunching power to software writers than the gaming industry ever imagined could be supplied. Gaming on the Mac was never any good because the software engineers were never smart enough to utilize Altivec the way Adobe has.

A while ago you posted some networking software benchmarks that clearly showed the same effect when software is written for the PC and ported to Apple. If the software maker utilized Altivec it would have easily outpaced the PC/Intel version of their software. Much like again Adobe benchmarks better performance on the Mac due to Altivec.

One thing that is not mentioned yet is the fact that in the future it is not just going to be that Macs run Window they will also run Windows and Mac OS X at the same time. Both OS's will run on the same CPU at once. You will be able to switch back and forth between both.

HH to purchase a PC laptop with the feature set of a MacBook Pro the end user is spending big bucks. As much as they would to purchase Apple.

quote:

Originally posted by RicoX:
Klappy no surprise Windows runs games faster. Games are written to run for Windows. There are no games written for the Mac. All Mac games are ported PC games. Funny how the Xbox 360 is using Altivec to supply more pixel crunching power to software writers than the gaming industry ever imagined could be supplied. Gaming on the Mac was never any good because the software engineers were never smart enough to utilize Altivec the way Adobe has.

A while ago you posted some networking software benchmarks that clearly showed the same effect when software is written for the PC and ported to Apple. If the software maker utilized Altivec it would have easily outpaced the PC/Intel version of their software. Much like again Adobe benchmarks better performance on the Mac due to Altivec.

One thing that is not mentioned yet is the fact that in the future it is not just going to be that Macs run Window they will also run Windows and Mac OS X at the same time. Both OS's will run on the same CPU at once. You will be able to switch back and forth between both.

HH to purchase a PC laptop with the feature set of a MacBook Pro the end user is spending big bucks. As much as they would to purchase Apple.

Been playing OS X on my new Mini now.

Can't wait to get Linux installed on it (that's what i bought it for).

Holy crap, what a con job. And this is the f...ing fourth version of it !

I mean I'll keep it for running games and having a good laugh now and then, but what a piece of garbage UI-wise.

Running this piece of screen-eating monster on anything but a 30" Cinema is impossible IMHO. Good thing i had read about all the quirks before, unless i would probably be posting like mad into some mac-forum now. I've been working with all sorts of machines for like 20 years now, but when i clicked that Dashbard-Icon and looked at what happened next, i was totally baffled. Holy shit. What a show. Took me 10 minutes to get this damn thing out of the dock and not running on startup (of course Apple help is a joke, and Dashboard does not show up in startup items, probably because it's not started but just runs LOL), so much for "intuitive" handling. Like that silly horizontal stripe through the menu bar, LOL. That's the right word for this UI: silly.

Brother Thalo, are you seriously WORKING with this OS ?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: klapauzius,

quote:

Originally posted by klapauzius:
That's the right word for this UI: silly.

(It's strange, you haven't used X until you got your macmini - so X UI must be truly shocking for you)

quote:

Originally posted by smithz:

quote:

Originally posted by klapauzius:
That's the right word for this UI: silly.

(It's strange, you haven't used X until you got your macmini - so X UI must be truly shocking for you)

Oh, and did i mention that disk utility found some garbled permissions On A VIRGIN SYSTEM ?

I could go on ranting about preview and this abysmal software they call "finder" these days and i've only been using the damn thing for like half an hour. And then you read a line like "How much better can OS X get ?". Idiots.

Holy smoke. I guess the saying is true: You can fool some people all the time.

quote:

I could go on ranting about preview and this abysmal software they call "finder" these days and i've only been using the damn thing for like half an hour. And then you read a line like "How much better can OS X get ?". Idiots.

Holy smoke. I guess the saying is true: You can fool some people all the time.

May I put an answer here?
To my knownledge most Users forget about things fast. Most users don't compare things, they just install "shiny new software" and use it (including limitations and other downsides). Very few ppl compare and complain. If all ppl would've done it we obviously wouldn't have 100+ OS'es that try to re-invent the wheel 24/7 ...

Yes, Finder in X is still mediocre. But it doesn't matter to Apple, because approx. 90% of the userbase doesn't moan about it and most of them probably haven't tried to move 1000+ files or any serious task. errr... gnarl...
Actually, those ppl who think "How much better can OS X get?" have no clue about other Software than OS X & its Apps. And that's very sad, bc. they damage the platform by accepting all its weaknesses and never complain (:-) they only complain about X-critics)

Fanatics (in whatever form) are a damn serious illness of our planet earth!

<sigh>

quote:

Oh, and did i mention that disk utility found some garbled permissions On A VIRGIN SYSTEM ?

Specifically, what are disk permissions? I assume they are some sort of data in a file. What do they do? How do they work? What is their purpose?