BootCamp run Windows on Mac

chadwick

Registered
BTW, I finished my XP Install using bootcamp last night. It's fantastic, they did a great job. You really get a feel for how fast the hardware is once you run a "familiar" OS that your other systems are running.

I am optimisitcally looking forward to the real virtualization tools!
 

linux_cat

Registered
what about games??, does bootcamp runs games smoothly....i got a new macbook pro and am wondering on wether to install windows...just for the wider selection of games, but do the drivers make full use of my graphics card??
 

ElDiabloConCaca

U.S.D.A. Prime
Boot Camp doesn't run anything. Boot Camp allows you to install Windows XP on your Intel-based Macintosh, just as you would install Windows XP on any other exising PC -- so you're running Windows XP natively -- no emulation, no virtualization, just Windows XP running natively on your Intel-based Macintosh.

Yes, Boot Camp does make a "driver CD" which contains full drivers for most all of the hardware (including the video card) on the Intel-based Macintosh computers.

Games in Windows XP should run just like they would on any other comparable PC hardware. XLR8 Your Mac has some good benchmarks in WoW if you're interested:

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
 

Lt Major Burns

"Dicky" Charlteston-Burns
all the benchmarks would point to xp being faster at... well everything...

can someone make me feel a bit better?
 

nixgeek

Mac of the SubGenius! :-)
Lt Major Burns said:
all the benchmarks would point to xp being faster at... well everything...

can someone make me feel a bit better?
Consider that XP doesn't have all the OpenGL Quartz Extreme and Core Image effects running which might make XP seem as though it's faster. I'm sure that once Vista is on it with all of it's eye candy it will be more evenly balanced.

Or at least that's my opinion... :rolleyes:
 

ra3ndy

Custom User Title
Here's who this situation is ideal for: My roommate, Neko.

She's an animation student at Columbia College in Chicago, and is torn between what computer to get. She technically needs a Mac for iMovie, FCP, etc. But she also needs the various things that Windows is better at, like Stop Motion Animation software (sadly, it's true). Enter Boot Camp. Perfect solution.

For the Pros concerned, Apple has obviously placed a lot of faith in their industry standard apps. Final Cut Pro, and (likely to be a standard soon) iMovie and Garageband. People will run Photoshop in Rosetta for the interoperability with their other Mac Software. Moving data between environments would be a HUGE detrement to productivity. And it isn't likely that even a virtualized Windows would have drag-and-drop function with OS X.

And then there's what 90% of the world uses their computers for: Internet, Email, Music, Homework. Everyone and their moms use iTunes, which is better in OS X due to its tight integration with the OS. The internet's moot. Doesn't matter what you have as long as you can run Firefox. Email, If you NEEEEED Outlook, then yeah, you're screwed. But most people use webmail anyway. A few business stragglers, really, will be left behind.

Windows on a mac is just a safety blanket for cautious switchers. Loads of people are curious, but don't want to throw themselves completely off. Now Apple can say "Come on, just try it. You can quit anytime you want... Promise! You know you want to. All the kids are. You wanna be COOOOOL, don'tcha?" or something like that.
 

tomdkat

Registered
nixgeek said:
However, for someone like me that does deal with more than one OS, this is a great convenience. If I have to test out software, relegating myself to one or two other computers aside from my Mac is not conducive at times. Being able to have those operating systems available to you for whatever reason is a good thing, especially if there is no Mac version of the applicaton at the moment and you need to get things done. I only have to deal with one computer which for the most part will be used in OS X, but will give me the ability to be more efficient in helping my users.
The thing is, doesn't VirtualPC or similar apps solve this problem much better? I have a screenshot somewhere on my machine of Windows 98 (or maybe NT) running alongside Lotus Notes for Windows side-by-side on my Linux box. I would think being able to run Windows AND Linux at the same time would be the best solution since either (or both) would be a few clicks away, instead of a reboot or two away. Given the processing speeds of the newer Macs, I think emulation is more practical.

On a related note, I've got a question about EFI vs BIOS. Is EFI new to Intel-based Macs or did that exist with the PPC-based Macs as well?

Peace...
 

tomdkat

Registered
serpicolugnut said:
Well, it means you can have an easier time convincing your boss that buying a Mac for work isn't a bad investment.
Does that also introduce the possibility of OS X being prohibited from being run on the machine, by the same boss? I would think if one were to convince their boss buying a Mac is a good investment, it would be to get OS X available for the user of that machine since they would already have access to a Windows machine.

Peace...
 

tomdkat

Registered
fryke said:
Ah, RacerX, don't go all Doomsday on us.
He should change his avatar to the grim reaper or something. :)

1.) an alternative to using Mac OS X if you're a Windows user. Then you'll reformat the whole drive and install Windows instead of OS X. Apple has won a hardware user, lost nothing, in fact, because the user was a Windows user to start with.
I think this is a great point since it identifies something I think needs to be kept in consideration. With this latest move Mac != MacOS. This move further distinguishes Mac hardware from the Mac OS (people basically ignored Linux on Macs) meaning growth in Mac marketshare won't necessarily mean growth in OS X marketshare. OS X is what makes Macs "do more than PCs", not the hardware itself. As more and more people choose to run Windows on their Macs, I can see that resulting in less and less justifiable reason to invest in OS X. RacerX makes an incredible point about Adobe CS3 (or whatever Adobe app he mentioned) and Linux.

I know many Windows users who have Linux installed in a dual-boot configuration who rarely or never boot it. Yeah, they checked it out but reverted back to their "native environment". I do agree existing OS X users won't abandon OS X, at least not until they feel they must. I can see Windows folks wanting to try OS X playing with it some, but not necessarily seriously since XP will be "readily" available to them.

I don't think this move is necessarily a "good" move on Apple's part, but I can understand them doing it. I'm not a Mac user so I lessen the value of my opinion here. :)

Peace...
 

tomdkat

Registered
Cat said:
Has The Gimp killed Photshop sales on any platform?
Currently, there is controversy over the Gimp UI behaving more like PhotoShop in all aspects. (Hence Gimpshop). Additionally, Gimp doesn't support the print-work related functions PhotoShop does nor does it do a couple of other things PhotoShop does that PhotoShop users who tried Gimp say are the main factors keeping them from switching from Gimp. Of course, this isn't the case for all PhotoShop users who tried Gimp but the Gimp mailing lists will show you there definitely IS interest by many PhotoShop users to switch to avoid PhotoShop's cost.

I think Gimp impacting PhotoShop marketshare is a different animal in the context of this discussion.

BTW: I'm slowly making my way through this long thread, so I apologize for comments I'm making that might be redundant. :)

Peace...
 

RacerX

Old Rhapsody User
Cat said:
Most of Macintosh software (~80-90% ballpark) is not software ported from windows, but developed specifically for the Mac. Why would that cease?
I guess the question needs to be asked... were you a Mac user during the Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X transition?

If so, when did you start using Mac OS X daily? And what was it that enabled you to start using Mac OS X?

I use a lot of Mac only software... in fact I use a lot of Mac OS X only software which is why I can still use Rhapsody as a primary platform for doing work today.

What stopped Rhapsody? Why did Apple bend over backwards to add Carbon to Mac OS X?

Two words... Adobe and Microsoft.

Most of the people I know didn't even give Mac OS X a thought until the summer of 2002. Why do you think that was? Do you think it was the release of 10.2? No! It was the release of the last hold out app for Mac OS X from Adobe, Photoshop.

Get this, pretty much all the other major apps (all Adobe's apps save Photoshop, and even Microsoft Office) had been released for Mac OS X by this point, and yet people held off.

You have to qualify your statement, which, by the way, does note follow from what you said above, where you essentially agreed with me that Apple is in a very different situation from all those other companies. The developers you are talking about are only those that already develop their applications both for windows and OS X. All the windows specific people are not going to care, all mac developers will see the installed user base and marketshare of Apple grow and they will be happy about it (cf. the Omni comment.)
Not really sure what you are arguing here. I'm saying that at best this is a risky move and at worse a fatal mistake on Apple's part.

If you wish to turn a blind eye to it, that is fine... but you really can't argue the possibility that what I'm saying isn't there. And no amount of spin can change that.


Now those that develop for both the platforms will have to ask themselves how they can maximize sales and profits versus investment in codebase and expertise.
And there you have the primary (and really only needed) argument for what I'm saying.

If Adobe, Microsoft or anyone else can save more money by dropping their Mac versions and still keep any significant number of those Mac users by doing this... they will.

It's business.

My humble opinion is that it is profitable for both Adobe and microsoft to keep distributing their products for OS X. As long as Mac marketshare does not decline below say 1% all mac-only companies are going to keep developing for OS X. I fail to see why BootCamp would actually _reduce_ marketshare
And there is the problem... we don't have to lose any market share for these developers to think twice about the type of move I'm suggesting to happen. We could even gain, and they still may consider dropping the Mac specific versions of their software.

That is the scary part of all this.

If it earns them the same (if not more) money to drop Mac development by not losing all their Mac users, they will do this.


Ask yourself this question... what percentage of Mac users of a product are needed to pay for the development of that product? The remainder of those users are profit for the company.

If Adobe or Microsoft thinks that they would still get equal amount to the remaining users buying the Windows version of their software to run in Windows on a Mac... they will drop the Mac version in a heart beat.

It's business.

Has The Gimp killed Photshop sales on any platform?
No one I know buys the Unix version of Photoshop any more (of course it is stuck at version 3.0.1). And Gimp still doesn't match Photoshop for features or usability.

More to the point, has Gimp hurt Photoshop sales on the Mac platform? No! Why? There is no native version of Gimp for Mac OS X.

I don't see "photoshop-on-the-mac-rebooted-in-windows" killing Rosetta Photshop either. People who rely on PPC-native speed programs will hold out at least until the "Pro Mac" (dual-dual/quad) intel towers come out. I'm sure Rosetta Photoshop will run well enough on them
Professional Mac users don't buy top of the line Macs to run their primary apps well enough. These same people could have run almost all their apps but Photoshop natively in Mac OS X and run Photoshop well enough in Classic and still they stayed with Mac OS 9.

Apple is going to have a hard time selling high end Intel systems until after their is a native version of all the major apps that those systems are being bought for.

That is just the facts.

And users who are willing to pay that much for a high end Intel system may also be willing to pay for a crossgrade to the Windows version of Photoshop to actually run Photoshop in Windows at the speeds they bought the hardware for to begin with.


fryke said:
Yeah. It's your own point that Photoshop on the Mac is better than Photoshop on Windows. I mean: Even if Photoshop currently (!!!) performs better on WinXP on an intel Mac than through Rosetta, I'd *still* use it through Rosetta - and most graphics artists *I* know, would, too.
But the question that Adobe is going to be asking is if enough of those people would be willing to run Photoshop in Windows to afford them to drop Mac development.

Most graphic artist want to use Photoshop... would they be willing to use it in Windows on their Macs if there was no Mac version? Would enough be willing to do this that Adobe would either break even or profit from this?

Neither Adobe nor Microsoft are in the business of making great software... they are in the business of making money. And if they see a way to make money without the Mac development costs, they'll do it.

And I _also_ truly believe that OS X has advantages over Windows so the general movement will be towards the Mac and away from Windows for users of intel Macs.
I don't have blind faith like that. The best software doesn't always win... and we both know this.

'nuff said.
C'mon... it's me you are talking to... I have plenty more to say on the subject.

Have I ever been short for words?


Captain Code said:
All those platforms with the exception of probably SGI(since I don't know much about them) didn't have any existing programs like Photoshop, MS Word etc did they? We do, so it's not like those companies have to do any more work than they already are.
SGI did.

More importantly, NEXTSTEP had Adobe Illustrator which (with PageMaker) was one of the biggest apps in desktop publishing in the late 80's early 90's. It also had WordPerfect and FrameMaker early on.

One has to remember that Photoshop didn't take off until much later when things like 24 bit displays were more common place. In the late 80's early 90's most desktop publishing designers were concerned with screen size rather than color. People as late as 1993 were willing to pay $1,200US for a 21" grayscale display for their systems. NeXT didn't even offer color until the release of NEXTSTEP 2.0.

But yes, Illustrator left NEXTSTEP even though NeXT was a big client of Adobe.

To create a linux verision of Photoshop is a lot more work than maintaining the Mac version. Also, Macs are well entrenched in the publishing and multimedia firms.
A little history of Photoshop...

Photoshop was a Mac only application when first released. How Mac only? It was written in Pascal.

At version 2.5, Adobe rewrote all the code in C to make it portable to other platforms (like Windows and SGI).

So, how hard would it be to make a Linux version of Photoshop? Not very. They already have most of the Photoshop interface for X Windows finished and would only need to port the underlying structure to Linux (or any other Unix for that matter).

And that is actually something that we should worry about too. What if Adobe drops Mac development for X Windows? Mac OS X has X11... so Mac users could still use their products.

Myke said:
What do we care about most here? Is it the OS or the applications? If popular software such as Photoshop or Word can be made to run seemlessly on the Mac - even if it takes Windows running in the background - where is the problem?
The main problem as I see it is... well, one of temperature.

None of this is like throwing a live frog into boiling water. It is like putting the frog in luke warm water and bringing it up to a boil.

I am just hoping that enough of you frogs start jumping around before our little platform is slowly boiled alive. ;)

tomdkat said:
He should change his avatar to the grim reaper or something.
I actually look good in black. :D
 

Lt Major Burns

"Dicky" Charlteston-Burns
Goth!

i have heard theories that this is Jobs first move at bowing the mac platform out gracefully from the computing market and concentrating on digital music.

discuss.
 

chadwick

Registered
Well.... I dunno about OS X versus XP, but Java 5 on OS X is blowing chunks compared to the one on XP.

jboss 4.0.3SP1 bootup on the iMac running XP - 16 seconds
jboss 4.0.3SP1 bootup on the iMac running OS X 10.4.6 - 26 seconds :(

EDIT: on OS X with JDK 1.4.2 startup time is 18 seconds... still slower than XP but not noticably so.
 

chadwick

Registered
Oh, also. 3DMark05 on the iMac running XP gives you score of 2776.

CPU score was fantastic, video score was so-so.
 

ra3ndy

Custom User Title
Since Steve came back and started calling shots, he hasn't really made any drastically stupid decisions (ok ok Flower Power iMac, maybe the Cube....). His greatest strength has always been seeing opportunity where others didn't. I look forward to what Apple has to follow this up with, personally.

That, or I look forward to the day Steve has to spin his way out of the bad press when OS X dies. It'd be fantastic. Like Bill O'Reilly + 5.
 

sinclair_tm

wow, 1.4g is way faster!
i'm sorry, but many of you seem to have over looked one rather important thing. from the boot camp web page:
Boot Camp lets you install Windows XP without moving your Mac data, though you will need to bring your own copy to the table, as Apple Computer does not sell or support Microsoft Windows. Boot Camp will burn a CD of all the required drivers for Windows so you don't have to scrounge around the Internet looking for them.
so if it messes up, apple doesn't care. are they going to go out of their way to make sure that it is stable and useable? not really. if i have problems getting it to work, and i call up apple, what are they going to say, "we don't support that, good luck". i have been waiting for this news just as much as the next person, now there is really a chance that i can play hl2 on my mac, and not have 2 towers taking up my desk space. i don't really see this as hurting apple. its more of a crutch for iffy switchers, and a "this is cool, gee wiz" thing for us mac meddlers (like us that still run rhapsody or os x on an old world mac). i don't see it being main stream. can you even see your mac partition when booted in win xp, and visa-versa? if not, then it really becomes not so useful. like many, i do live in fear of that day when the last macintosh ever is sold, and the platform is no more, but i don't think boot camp will do it. but like all things in this field, only time will tell.
 

simbalala

Registered
People have been predicting the demise of the Mac for at least 20 years. It's stronger now than ever and it leaves windoes in the dust. It's also UNIX now, what are you people worried about?
 

Cat

Registered
RacerX said:
I guess the question needs to be asked... were you a Mac user during the Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X transition?

If so, when did you start using Mac OS X daily? And what was it that enabled you to start using Mac OS X?
Yes, I was. I switched to OS X with Jaguar IIRC. I was using Quark Express, so without Classic this would not have been possible. Using OS X and putting up with classic gave several advantages over sticking with OS 9. I consider the situation with windows the same. Using OS X, but being able to tap into windows when required is better thatn sticking with windows altogether.

RacerX said:
Not really sure what you are arguing here. I'm saying that at best this is a risky move and at worse a fatal mistake on Apple's part.

If you wish to turn a blind eye to it, that is fine... but you really can't argue the possibility that what I'm saying isn't there. And no amount of spin can change that.
What are you arguiing here? What is the risk? That developers will stop writing Mac apps and rely on windows virtualisation? I asked you to give a rationale for that, but I haven't seen one. Are you arguing that developers are intrinsically irrational and "pull apps for no reason"? Well, then this transition to Intel and BootCamp will have not noticeable effect as the devs seem not to be rational agents.

RacerX said:
If Adobe, Microsoft or anyone else can save more money by dropping their Mac versions and still keep any significant number of those Mac users by doing this... they will.

It's business.

And there is the problem... we don't have to lose any market share for these developers to think twice about the type of move I'm suggesting to happen. We could even gain, and they still may consider dropping the Mac specific versions of their software.
So Apple's marketshare increases, there are more (albeit part-time) mac users than ever. Apple's stock goes up 10%, people are stunned and amazed, the international press is gushing, Windows delays Vista to spring 2007 _and you think developers will abandond the Mac_ ... IMHO, non sequitur ...

RacerX said:
Ask yourself this question... what percentage of Mac users of a product are needed to pay for the development of that product? The remainder of those users are profit for the company.

If Adobe or Microsoft thinks that they would still get equal amount to the remaining users buying the Windows version of their software to run in Windows on a Mac... they will drop the Mac version in a heart beat.
That's where I don't follow you anymore. Apple has ~5% marketshare and all the companies developing software for the Mac are quite happy to do so. I guess they are profitable right now, otherwise they would have pulled out. Now, from this situation the only reason I can see for them to rationally consider abandoning the OS X platform, is if the actual number of OS X users and prospective buyers declines. Why would that happen? Nevermind if new, additional switchers will be only part time users, all the people using OS X now will keep using OS X. The adoption and upgrade rate on OS X is staggering, Mac users always get the latest and greatest and are willing t spend money for it. We care about our platform. BootCamp is not going to cause previous Mac users to switch away from OS X.

RacerX said:
More to the point, has Gimp hurt Photoshop sales on the Mac platform? No! Why? There is no native version of Gimp for Mac OS X.
Exactly, since there is no native windows photoshop version for the Mac, people will rather use Rosetta than reboot to windows to use the native windows version ...

RacerX said:
Professional Mac users don't buy top of the line Macs to run their primary apps well enough. These same people could have run almost all their apps but Photoshop natively in Mac OS X and run Photoshop well enough in Classic and still they stayed with Mac OS 9.
But Classic gave them the option to switch, just like it did for me. When OS X began offering increasing addvantages over staying in OS 9, I switched. Classic made this possible. Rosetta likewise will make it possible for them to move over to Intel Macs. they will have to put up with some slowdown temporarily, BUT I *guess*/*predict* that a Quad - Dual Core Duo is going to be so much faster than a Quad - Dual Core G5 that the effective speed hit is going to be quasi nihil.

RacerX said:
Apple is going to have a hard time selling high end Intel systems until after their is a native version of all the major apps that those systems are being bought for.

That is just the facts.

And users who are willing to pay that much for a high end Intel system may also be willing to pay for a crossgrade to the Windows version of Photoshop to actually run Photoshop in Windows at the speeds they bought the hardware for to begin with.
You are presuming that those people 1) will buy/already own Windows licences 2) will buy/already own Photoshop for Windows Adobe has stated, like Microsoft, that they will be supoprting OS X on intel, they will ship native versions, in fact, the next version is going to be native. they will tackle this like the OS 9 - OS X transition allowing for 18-24 months, i.e. a full release cycle. From the announcement of Intel macs, were Adobe's ceo pledged his support, in June 2005 already almost 12 months have elapsed. Adobe has moved on, Mac Pro systems are going to be released in the second half of this year at the latest, Adobe's products will follow. Professionals will have to put up with at most a few months of Rosetta, if they choose to be early adopters. Nothing is forcing them. Quad G5 machines will be viable throughout 2007. If I were a Pro, I'd probably consider switching/upgrading after MWSF 2007. Why? Pro Mac towers will be available, Leopard will have been released, Adobe will probably have released/announced Photoshop.


RacerX said:
Most graphic artist want to use Photoshop... would they be willing to use it in Windows on their Macs if there was no Mac version? Would enough be willing to do this that Adobe would either break even or profit from this?
You seem to forget that there is a Mac version already, the one running under Rosetta. If you have evidence that this is actually compeltely unusabel, please say so or post evidence.

RacerX said:
I don't have blind faith like that. The best software doesn't always win... and we both know this.
I completely agree.. I do not have _blind_ faith either. That's why I gave several reasons, backed by facts and references to developer reactions, to support my views. Most developers are 1) geeks and excited about this 2) happy that mind and marketshare will probably expand. Check out Omni's reaction, for instance, or Gruber's comments.
 

powermac

iMac Dual 2.0 17'
My initial reaction to Boot Camp, is much like my initial reaction was to actually going to Boot Camp. I certainly don't think Boot Camp is going to destroy the Mac, or OSX.
Doesn't this now obligate Apple to provide support to people experiencing trouble with Boot Camp ?
What are PC manufactures thinking? Will OSX be available for Dells and the like ?
All ready I am hearing rumors, and getting questions about does Apple feel confident about OSX's future?
I have to admit, at the present moment, I am not sure what Apple is doing.
 

fryke

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
Okay. Just noticed that this post is going to be a little off-topic. So here first my short answer. (You can skip the rest if you want.) -> RacerX: Talk of impending doom and it'll materialise if enough people believe in it and work on it hard enough. I'm against that. I don't want to be blind and deaf, but I guess we all *know* by now that there's a danger. But again: You don't eat the food as hot as it's being cooked. (Dunno if that proverb exists in English in some variant...) Apple was doomed back in the day because they didn't allow clones. Apple was doomed because they weren't Windows compatible. Then Apple was doomed because they DID allow clones. Then they were doomed because of Windows 95. And then because of other things. OS X wasn't working right, so Apple was definitely doomed. Now Apple is doomed because it _does_ allow Windows software to run at native speeds on Mac hardware. There's a pattern. Apple is *always* doomed and it *always* survives improved.

Now for the rather off-topic part... Back when all major apps were not out for OS X, I was our comany's test-frog. I was using Mac OS X as the main operating system and ran PageMaker, Photoshop, Illustrator and GoLive in Classic. That was in 10.0 and 10.1. It was certainly not "ready for production". Several problems, actually, speed only being one of them - one that I actually overcame by saying that while the performance was awful, I was still working faster because I didn't have to reboot the machine five to ten times a day. The pros - like those in that company I'm talking about - need people like you and me, RacerX, to test the waters. To tell them where to go. I showed them the important stepping stones with OS X, set up the machines with them (so they learned...) once Jaguar (and the main Adobe apps) came around and by the time they were working in OS X, they already knew about the pros and cons of the new interface etc. and had much less problems with the Finder misbehaving or the Dock acting up or the Apple menu not being what it once used to be. They used OS X the way Apple intended users to instead of trying to look at it as "the next update to OS 9".

Those pros are now asking me whether it makes sense for them to buy intel Macs. I don't work there anymore, but am their consultant on things IT. I've told them that Adobe's software would run slower on the current intel Macs than on what they already had. What did they do? The right thing, of course. They bought an intel iMac. For now, it's their demo machine, game machine and surf station for customers visiting the office. But they also install their Adobe software etc. on it to see how it (mis-)behaves. They do themselves what I did for them back when OS X was new. So that they know when intel Macs are ready for their purposes.

Now: Sure, they install Windows. They don't consider switching (or they had back when the Mac sucked big time and the G4 was stuck at 500 MHz for a year...), since they _know_ that they can use their PowerPC systems until Adobe's software is intel-native.
 
Top