Boot Camp enables Windows XP dual-boot

Le 07 avr. 2006 à 14:49, Kirk McElhearn a écrit :

> It already exists - software called MacDrive. And, permissions aren't
> respected when Windows sees the HFS+ partition, so that's an issue...

I know, that's why I point it out. It's been pointed too on the
Macbidouille/hardmac forums too. There's a lot of "unknown" territory
there…

To come back on the game issues, I'm not a game specialist, but A lot
of games rely on OpenGL, which is better implemented on windows and
Linux than on OS X… Vista will see M$ enforcing the move out of
OpenGL as its implementation is especially made to force to directX
etc. I wonder how it'll benefit us if OpenGL rocks (at last) on OS X.
It's even more an issue for big names in the 3D softwares as they
rely heavily on it.

There's something big around this…

And I'm still wondering about the tongue in cheek name chosen for
Boot Camp… ;)

Denis =G)

-----Original Message-----

> This is the first time any commercially available machine has been able to
> run both the MacOS and Windows XP natively.


I recall installing an entire academic computer lab back in the 90s with the
then-new G3 Mac (with OS 8.x!) sporting hardware boards from Orange Micro
that carried x86 processors and other circuitry that enabled us to run
Windows NT 4 on the Macs 'natively,' by which we meant "with real hardware
rather than with layers of software emulation." A keystroke combination
auto-switched between the Mac and Windows installations if both were
running. If Windows hadn't been started yet, a desktop icon got you going,
business-as-usual. Worked like a champ.

What I lust after in today's Mac is the ability to do what I am doing right
this very minute on the Dell Latitude D510 I'm using to write this message.

The base OS is Windows XP, but I'm also running VMWare Workstation and have
two Windows 2003 Enterprise Servers, one Windows 2000 Pro workstation, and
one Red Hat Linux (Fedora Core 4) workstation running simultaneously and
talking to one another on a bridged virtual network. CPU calls and some
other intensive calculation goes straight to the computer's own circuitry,
while other devices like video and networking work through standard virtual
devices with built-in drivers. I can manipulate each 'guest' OS as if it
were running on its own dedicated hardware, and I can suspend each guest
(rather than formally shut it down) when I don't need it for a while, which
frees RAM and other resources for the rest of the box.

No rebooting required. No scripting. No convoluted keyboard combinations.
Just "Well Would You Look At That."

[My only big problem is that the Windows 2003 servers are running DHCP and
DNS and I keep forgetting to block those services when I work in my favorite
local coffee shop. I remember when I see users running to the baristas to
ask why they can't connect to the internet...because I've accidentally
hijacked them. Oops. Duck head behind screen and silently fix the problem.
Buy additional Guilt Danish.]

I would think that an Intel-based Mac should generically enable a similar
methodology, and definitely hope to see options appear soon. VMWare should
be ideally situated to do this, I think, since they already offer an x86
Linux version of their workstation product which easily could be recompiled
to run natively on OS X + Intel. Running virtual Intel-based guests then
becomes a matter of ensuring that the applicable hardware calls can work,
and that the host machine is larded to the gills with RAM. Easy peasy.

This Dell would be a Mac if such an option had been available 4 months ago
when I was in my buying window (no pun intended).

James Atkinson
Asheville, NC

On 07 Apr 2006, at 05:45 , Jason Campbell wrote:
> Now if only OS X had "proper" "hibernate" support so you could leave
> everything running, reboot to XP do what you needed to do and then
> reboot back to OS X and everything would be as you left it (including
> your half-typed TidBits e-mail or whatever you happen to be working
> on at the time).

Yes, that would be ideal.

> I know that "safe-sleep" is available via a software hack but I
> haven't been game to try it yet.

Whatwhat?

Oh, right, that. Trouble with that is it requires pulling the power
to the machine.

--
<http://pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20040114>

> I for one am fairly un-impressed with Boot Camp. Who wants to reboot
> a machine? I think my laptop is going on 4-5 weeks without a reboot
> (I'm probably a security patch behind).

You're a Mac office. You've made a nifty PowerPoint presentation. You
want to burn a CD. Now before you send it out to whoever, you boot up an
Intel Mac and see EXACTLY what they would see at the other end. (Well as
exactly as possible.) (Substitute AutoCAD, Word, whatever for PowerPoint.)

Also I can quit buying a Dell for the bookkeeper to run the Windows
version of QuickBooks Pro. Now I have to deal with the Dell and all it's
issues and when there's a problem I'm stuck between working around it or
maybe taking down the bookkeeper to fix it. Having multiple machines in
an office that I can move to would be great.

One notable first with the release of Boot Camp is the ability to
partition a drive without destroying all data on it. First time
Apple's ever included that feature, and I can't remember any of the
third-party disk tools ever having that feature for the Macintosh. I
hope Apple includes it in the next version of Disk Utility.

Steve Cochran

Hey Apple, There's a reason windows is refered to as" THE DARK SIDE!"

At 7:04 AM -0700 2006/04/08, Stephen A. Cochran Lists wrote:
>One notable first with the release of Boot Camp is the ability to
>partition a drive without destroying all data on it. First time
>Apple's ever included that feature, and I can't remember any of the
>third-party disk tools ever having that feature for the Macintosh. I
>hope Apple includes it in the next version of Disk Utility.

        It's in the 10.4.6 version of diskutil (the CLI version of
Disk Utility), although not yet in Disk Utility.app or the diskutil
manual page. Apparently it only works on GPT (Intel Mac) disks,
though. In Terminal, type "diskutil resizevolume" for more.


                                                Chris
--
Chris Pepper: <http://www.reppep.com/~pepper/>
Rockefeller University: <http://www.rockefeller.edu/>

On Apr 8, 2006, at 10:04 AM, Stephen A. Cochran Lists wrote:

> One notable first with the release of Boot Camp is the ability to
> partition a drive without destroying all data on it. First time
> Apple's ever included that feature, and I can't remember any of the
> third-party disk tools ever having that feature for the Macintosh. I
> hope Apple includes it in the next version of Disk Utility.

Volumeworks from Subrosa, for one, has this feature---will even
defragment the target volume for you if necessary to shrink the
original partition. I seem to recall that the disk utilities (Hard
Disk Toolkit?) from FWB and a few others used to have this feature.
So non-destructive repartitioning is by no means a Mac first.

But, I agree with you that it is a great feature---for one, it would
be nice to be able to partition the HD of a brand new Mac without
having to reinstall everything. The problem always has been that you
were never quite sure about the non-destructive part. (And this is
evidenced by the reports that have surfaced over the last few days of
hard drives getting mangled as a result of attempts to install Boot
Camp.)

Tomoharu

On 08 Apr 2006, at 08:04 , Stephen A. Cochran Lists wrote:
> One notable first with the release of Boot Camp is the ability to
> partition a drive without destroying all data on it. First time
> Apple's ever included that feature, and I can't remember any of the
> third-party disk tools ever having that feature for the Macintosh. I
> hope Apple includes it in the next version of Disk Utility.

There have been partitioning utilities for the Mac for quite a while
now. One I know of is iPartition, though to be clear, I don't
recommend partition disks under non-Boot Camp conditions, so my
mention is not an endorsement or recommendation.


--
Like the moment when the brakes lock/And you slide towards the big
truck/You stretch the frozen moments with your fear

At 12:25 PM -0700 4/6/06, Google Kreme wrote:
>Er... the mac is a PC and has always been a PC. PC == Personal
>Computer. This is different from "IBM PC"

        I am showing my age... or at least my memory skills. I was
reasonably young at the time...

        "PC" used to stand for "Pocket Computer". Back when the TRS-80 was
king, Radio Shack also sold a little hand held unit that looked like a
sideways calculator with a qwerty keyboard that was marketed for a long
time as a "PC". When IBM started to call their machines PCs it took me a
long time to get used to that.


--
* Johann Beda - contact link: <http://xri.net/=j-beda> *
* Johann's MostlyMac Computer Consulting - <http://mmcc.beda.ca/> *

On 4/7/06 at 8:47 PM, drdavidrossconsultant.com (David Ross) wrote:

>>I for one am fairly un-impressed with Boot Camp. Who wants to
>>reboot a machine?

>You're a Mac office. You've made a nifty PowerPoint presentation.
>You want to burn a CD. Now before you send it out to whoever, you
>boot up an Intel Mac and see EXACTLY what they would see at the
>other end. (Well as exactly as possible.) (Substitute AutoCAD, Word,
>whatever for PowerPoint..)

People who boot their Macs into Windows thinking they can tweak a PowerPoint presentation so that it looks right on a colleagues Dell etc running Windows are likely to be disappointed at some point. I've had more than one problem sharing PowerPoint files with colleagues when we were both using the same model machine running the same version of Windows. The problems traced to a difference in the fonts installed on both machines.

The only totally satisfactory way I've found to get around this issue of installed fonts is to use a file format such as Adobe's PDF format where the font information is embedded in the file, i.e., a file format specifically designed to address this issue. And for those formats, I can create the file using Mac OS X with no need to boot into Windows.

At 7:04 AM -0700 4/8/06, Stephen A. Cochran Lists wrote:
>One notable first with the release of Boot Camp is the ability to
>partition a drive without destroying all data on it. First time
>Apple's ever included that feature, and I can't remember any of the
>third-party disk tools ever having that feature for the Macintosh. I
>hope Apple includes it in the next version of Disk Utility.

FWB's Hard Disk Toolkit could do this. I used it regularly in the
mid-late nineties. It always popped up a warning dialog, though--
something to the effect of "this may work, or it may destroy all of
your data; best have a good backup".

Always worked perfectly for me.

--
Greg Sigman, Senior Library Associate
Ohio University Music/Dance Library
sigmanohio.edu

On 4/8/06, Stephen A. Cochran Lists <stephen.a.cochran.listscahir.net> wrote:
> One notable first with the release of Boot Camp is the ability to
> partition a drive without destroying all data on it.

Can someone confirm this is in fact a hard partition ? I had assumed
it was actually a disk image that Apple has somehow made available at
boot time.

Christopher Appell
European Market
FreeRecruiting.com
JobMart.com

[ It's a partition. The Boot Camp Assistant uses the new 'diskutil resizePartition' subcommand to resize the HFS+ partition, leaving free space. In the Windows installer you then format the free space as either NTFS or FAT32. -Andrew ]

On 09 Apr 2006, at 14:45 , Christophe Appell wrote:
> On 4/8/06, Stephen A. Cochran Lists
> <stephen.a.cochran.listscahir.net> wrote:
>> One notable first with the release of Boot Camp is the ability to
>> partition a drive without destroying all data on it.
>
> Can someone confirm this is in fact a hard partition ? I had assumed
> it was actually a disk image that Apple has somehow made available at
> boot time.

It HAS to be a hard partition, otherwise WinXP would explode. Or Boot
Camp would have to be FAR more intrusive and, subsequently, prone to
failure.

I am looking forward to playing with it next week.

Le 06-04-09 à 16:45, Christophe Appell a écrit :

>> One notable first with the release of Boot Camp is the ability to
>> partition a drive without destroying all data on it.
>
> Can someone confirm this is in fact a hard partition ? I had assumed
> it was actually a disk image that Apple has somehow made available at
> boot time.

No, it's a true partition.

Neil
---
hushBOOM design
Web design, development & hosting -- Writing & Editing
http://www.hushboom.com/

Harro de Jong wrote:

One theory I've seen is that Apple released Boot Camp now (and as a public beta, which is rare for Apple, afaik) to prevent people from going the DIY route.

I'm not convinced that this is a beta. Apple are, as any even cursory examination of their dealings under Steve Jobs will show, the ultimate corporate control freaks, and I find it hard to imagine that they'd release a semi-ready product. (They came close, of course, with the "public beta" release of OS X)

In my opinion, they've released a perfectly respectable and fully functional product. The reason why it's designated a "beta" is to keep the option open that, eventually, it can be rolled back into a release of Leopard, without Apple being open to accusations that they've taken something away. Right now, they're giving Boot Camp away in order to create a stir, something they've done with quite some success. If they wish, they can withdraw it as a free download when Leopard is released, and simply say "Well, it's no longer a beta; it's now a mature product and, as such, is part of the operating system and hence not a free download."

Just my opinion and, as my wife knows, I'm never wrong!

Steve

Johann Beda wrote:
> "PC" used to stand for "Pocket Computer". Back when the TRS-80 was
> king, Radio Shack also sold a little hand held unit that looked like a
> sideways calculator with a qwerty keyboard that was marketed for a long
> time as a "PC". When IBM started to call their machines PCs it took me a
> long time to get used to that.
>
 
And then there was the endless confusion about PC-DOS (IBM) vs MS-DOS
(MS) which were 99.9% identical except when they weren't.

On Apr 11, 2006, at 1:41 AM, Steve McCabe wrote:

> If they wish, they can withdraw it as
> a free download when Leopard is released, and simply say "Well,
> it's no
> longer a beta; it's now a mature product and, as such, is part of the
> operating system and hence not a free download."

Actually, Apple in their press release stated very clearly that it
will be part of Leopard.

Regards,

Howard

On Apr 10, 2006, at 10:41 PM, Steve McCabe wrote:

> In my opinion, they've released a perfectly respectable and fully
> functional
> product.

Well, no. No iSight support and a few other minor (to me) things.
[Nothing that's missing is "major" to me, now that a working right
click has been found, since I would be booting into Windows only
rarely.]


> The reason why it's designated a "beta" is to keep the option open
> that, eventually, it can be rolled back into a release of Leopard,
> without
> Apple being open to accusations that they've taken something away.
> Right
> now, they're giving Boot Camp away in order to create a stir,
> something
> they've done with quite some success. If they wish, they can
> withdraw it as
> a free download when Leopard is released, and simply say "Well,
> it's no
> longer a beta; it's now a mature product and, as such, is part of the
> operating system and hence not a free download."

There is a precedent for this in the X11 support, which was withdrawn
from downloadable status when the first Mac OS X upgrade version
which found it on the CD was released.

I would expect "Boot Camp" as a separate thing to go away at Leopard
time, with Disk Utility gaining the ability to do the needed things.
(I would not be surprised to see the driver CD/DVD burning step also
go away, with the drivers on a Windows autostart volume on the
regular Leopard DVD.)

While we're here, I don't think that the license expiration date has
the significance that is being attributed to it, as a hint of the
Leopard release date. It takes a small web page on Apple's site to
extend the license to the date they want it extended to, or a follow-
on release with a later-expiring license if Apple wishes to tune up
Boot Camp to more nearly match what gets put into Leopard as Leopard
is brought closer to final form.

   --John

On Apr 12, 2006, at 12:51 AM, johnbaxterlistsmac.com wrote:

> While we're here, I don't think that the license expiration date has
> the significance that is being attributed to it, as a hint of the
> Leopard release date. It takes a small web page on Apple's site to
> extend the license to the date they want it extended to, or a follow-
> on release with a later-expiring license if Apple wishes to tune up
> Boot Camp to more nearly match what gets put into Leopard as Leopard
> is brought closer to final form.

Which seems more reasonable to me, anyway. I expect a spring ,07
release, myself. I won't be disappointed either way, but my thought
on the license was that they would need to add new versions as new
hardware/chips are deployed throughout the year, since I doubt this
current version would necessarily recognize future hardware, and
there are some issues I would expect to be resolved at some point in
the future, such as file sharing issues. Besides, with those kinds of
changes imminent, I doubt they want older versions staying around in
perpetuity and able to screw up newly released hardware at some
future date.

 From Apple's standpoint, I think releasing this 'beta' makes most
sense at this time if one considers the amount of knowledgeable
Windows users contemplating the purchase of an Apple computer and
perhaps wishing there was a back door 'just in case' they found they
needed to run some Windows application, OR, preferred to run Windows
as their primary OS for the time being, booting into Mac OS X to
'play with it' from time to time. I think Apple is willing to 'put up
or shut up' and place their OS up against the other guy's OS and let
the users see for themselves which one they prefer, feeling pretty
confident they can woo most of these experimenters over to Mac OS,
and probably expecting that most of these 'experimenters' are not
your typical rookie computer user. It's also particularly interesting
in the timing of all this in light of the delays with Vista. I know a
lot of Windows power-users who are 'tired of waiting' and might, in
the interim, distract themselves with learning to use Mac OS X as
long as they could still run their 'preferred' OS on the hardware
without too many compromises. Apple's market share gains would be
negligible in overall numbers, but in mindshare it might be
significant if, BIG IF, there was a significant percentage of power
Windows users who had a favorable experience with Mac OS X/Apple
hardware. To some extent this has been tested in the iPod market;
perhaps Apple will be able to get a similar reaction with this new
capability.

Jeffrey