Apple releases Boot Camp Public Beta

But I'd be willing to bet that it never loses the "beta" moniker; that would make it officially supported, and I would think that Apple wouldn't do that.

What version of Winows XP do your recommend?

Boot Camp will work with either XP Home or Pro, but your installer disc must have SP2 slipstreamed into it (newer XP discs already do). I run Pro on my PC at home, but unless you plan to join an Active Directory domain, Home should be just fine.

Apple mentions right on the main Boot Camp page that they're going to include it in Leopard.

Crazy, I know. But when it comes time to upgrade my desktop PC this summer, I'm gonna buy whatever replaces the Power Mac.

Don't get on my @$$ about warez or whatever... according to my interpretation of the licensing, so long as you own the license, you can run Windows however you want...

XP is bloatware. I've been running this slimmed version for about a year... never crashed. Works great (esp virtually and on systems with limited memory). It takes less than an hour to install and completely update, and the installer is less than 200MB!!

(Removed link to "Windows XP (Stripped to the Bone Edition)")

(btw, the dude that posted this uses/has a key... you'll have to use a valid key if you want to update... which is what I did, changed the key to mine, and its the only windows machine I have--- I hope someday there is a Stripped to the Bone edition of OS X!!)

From the AUP

According to my interpretation of the AUP, you just posted a link to copyrighted software that you don't own the copyright for, and the copyright owner hasn't given consent for. You're banned from posting for one week.

...if it wasn't, if for sure give it a try, cause I still have my XP CDs from my home built computer (its dead, no double licenses). Is there an alternative to VPC?

John

open source virtual machine... I think its even compatible with VPC
QemuX front end to Qemu

--
actually... I meant Q:

Q

Anybody remember this thread sometime back?
Apple Dumps OS X
I posted...

Peace,
Rob

If XP will boot, what's to stop someone installing win2k instead of XP? Why does Apple specify XPsp2? Does SP2 have some core difference from an original XP install? Isn't win2k basically the same core OS as XP? Is Apple specifying a 'current' OS so's M$ doesn't get POed? Hmmmm . . .

BTW, I DLed the "Boot Camp Assistant" disk image. The installer won't run (says "unsupported") on my 10.3.x G4 TiBook, but I'm not sure if that's because of the OS version or the HW. However, I used Pacifist to extract the app "Boot Camp Assistant" to my HD. It won't run either, crashes. Opening the app's contents I see it contains a disk image "DiskImage.dmg" which mounts as a volume called "MacintoshDrivers". That contains a few items:

• autorun.inf
  
• autorun.exe
  
• Install Macintosh Drivers for Windows XP.exe
  
• Documentation
  

That is all.

dan k

You need a Macintel. Such as a MacBook Pro, iMac, or Mac Mini. And you also need 10.4.6

Well, yeah. {shrugs} I'm just exploring alternate possibilities, like a good hacker should. (not that I'm a good hacker, but one can dream)

dan k

I'm sure the bulk of the installer's work is partitioning the hard disk and installing a BIOS emulator. (I'm curious how complete that is. For instance, does it include a complete Radeon X1600 VGA BIOS?) My uneducated guess is that there's a *chance* you could install W2K once you've gone though that, either in the first phase or by installing it over your XP partition but...

For heaven's sake, why? Microsoft has officially pitched it into the Dust Bin of History when it comes to patches and security updates, and you're *not* going to find drivers for any of the MacBook's hardware. I'm not a fan of the Big Brother aspects of all versions of XP outside the corporate version, but as an "OS" I'd rate it superior to W2K in almost every respect. Set the GUI to "classic" widgets and it's substantially faster, if nothing else.

--Peace

Well, not so much win2k specifically but rather being able to run any alternate x86 OSes would be awful nifty.

As for win2k, it's the only win32 OS I actually own (and use), so my interest sorta lies in that direction. I know very little about the M$ OSes and I always have understood XP to be bloated and slow, not to mention the "Big Brother" aspects. {shrugs again} I don't really care as long as it serves its purpose for me, playing win32 games. Heh heh, and I reckon nobody is gonna be buying a Mac as a win32 gamer for awhile.

Edit: OSx86 Project forum thread on the subject. Post #66 mentions a successful boot from "Fedora Core 5 CD1.", whatever that is.

dan k

Fedora Core is the public maintained version of Redhat. New Redhat Enterprise editions are based on a stable branch of Fedora. instead of having a Redhat veriosn in the public, they chose to move it to Fedora, so that any modern Redhat with the logos and all can be "official". Fedora should not incloude any logo or reference to Redhat, IIRC.

I am looking this which john8520 told me about. Looks promising. I was thinking of getting it as an alternative to Virtual PC, and testing it out, and reporting back. So essentially, i would be a guinee pig, and tell you how it does on my iBook. For serious horsepower, i use a VNC connection on my home network and pull up my PC screen on my iBook (actually, i am typing this post thru my iBook onto firefox of my PC). Maybe when I get some more $. It's $23, but right now, i have some bills to pay, and some stuff to sell, before I EVEN consider it (like rent/food/etc..).

So, maybe later this month (early next month). If you buy the stuff on This page, it would help me faster. I also used some of my money today to help fund the local public radio station (it plays alternative music, and NO COMMERCIAL'S!!!!, Rock on!) to keep it on the air. I pledged as much as I could, and get my conscience to agree with me.
if you buy that stuff, it would help a LOT, and I could demo it sooner.

http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/mac/

One can't help but wonder what Michael Dell thinks of all of this. I mean, think about it; here you have what are probably the best made computers for the average person now able to run a myriad of OS's, including Windows, they are wonderfully designed and stylish, and when compared to most PCs from Dell, they just look far more interesting and simply blow them away in reliability. They might not be as inexpensive, but you often get what you pay for.
This is great stuff. Have to get a mini now...

Peace,
Rob

Hot off the press from our friends at Wired...
Windows on Mac, Simultaneously

Perhaps this is what Apple should be aiming for.

Eh?

I started a new thread here.

dan k

Read the whole story here. The article also mentions some other great related suggestions, of which my favorite is

dan k

3 dollars paypal to the first person to succesfully run os x inside windows on a macintel from within a virtual environment while running a windows emulator application with parallel.

(boot camp, load windows, load virtualization of choice, load os x, parallels, then run an emulator written for windows to again run OS X.
Alternately, do this within OSX and change the order.

SCREENSHOTS NEEDED!!
2 extra paypal dollars for benchmarking everything.

Just a tad bit odd?????

I've done that before. Kinda.

I controled my G5 within the G4 which was being controlded via the dell what was also being controled buy the G5 wich was controling the G4. It was very confusing. But, also just through VPC.

John

How about...
OS X loads Parallel, which in turn loads Windows 98, which then runs VMac with System 6, and then opens SoftPC running CP/M... confusing enough?

Boot to windows, then run virtual PC, run linux, then vmware, then OS X THEN parallels, then Windows XP remote desktop. on asecond monitor to see what's going on the first monitor. I'm thinking a kinda howlaround effect.

Course maybe I've been watching too much doctor who and staring at the howlaround effect from the first few doctors alot. I just finished downloading ALL the episodes from the show's 40 year history.

The Intel CPU architecture isn't particularly friendly to virtualization programs. (Prior to the latest CPUs that *do* have features to support them it's actually something of an amazing hack that programs like VMware work at all.) As a consequence, one thing you're pretty unlikely to see anytime soon is one "Hypervisor" (VMware/Parallels/x86 Virtual PC, etc) running inside another. So you can probably safely remove those combinations from your wishlists.

Six dollars sez it can be done. That's all I'm saying.

Daring Fireball on Boot Camp - here

dan k