Apple Software Enables Intel-based Macs to Run Windows XP

[Scorpion]

Apple Introduces Boot Camp
Public Beta Software Enables Intel-based Macs to Run Windows XP

CUPERTINO, California—April 5, 2006—Apple® 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®, and once installation is complete, users can restart their computer to run either Mac OS® 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.”

Full Article @ Apple's Website... (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/apr/05bootcamp.html)

[PN]

I was very interested (give this some thought) about getting the Intel-based
iBook. However, I just checked my Windows XP Pro CD and it has SP-1.
System Requirements
Boot Camp requires an Intel-based Mac with a USB keyboard and mouse, or a built-in keyboard and TrackPad; Mac OS X version 10.4.6 or later; the latest firmware update; at least 10GB of free space on the startup disk; a blank recordable CD or DVD; and single-disc version of Windows XP Home Edition or Professional with Service Pack 2 or later.

[mr_coffee]

PN, why don't u just download and burn SP2? or do u have to have a pre-installed SP2 disk for it to work? Because my copy is also only SP1, but i upgraded to SP2.

Question, if it says Service pack 2 or later, does later mean, older or newer?

[teyrn]

I guess I'm the only one that fails to see the advantage of getting a MAC just to run Windows XP on. The Operating system is the issue not the hardware. You are taking a more stable computer that is less likely to be targeted by trojans, worms, backdoors, and spyware and putting the very operating system on it that the majority of MAC users wanted to get away from. I want a MAC but I sure don't want to run Windows on it. I already have that headache wouldn't want to add to it.
*shrugs*

[jimnms]

I was very interested (give this some thought) about getting the Intel-based
iBook. However, I just checked my Windows XP Pro CD and it has SP-1.

You can create your own SP2 install disk. You can search and find the manual way of making a slipstreamed SP2 install disk, or just download Autostreamer (http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=223562).

All you do is insert your XP disk, select the SP2 install, and it will create a .iso for you to burn your own bootable SP2 disk.

[PN]

Jim, thanks. The current Apple computers are really just interim models. I have decided to wait for Intel to release the Merom (http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2715) processor (for mobile computers) in late 2006 before I make my purchase.

You are taking a more stable computer that is less likely to be targeted by trojans, worms, backdoors, and spyware and putting the very operating system on it that the majority of MAC users wanted to get away from.
Teyrn, you are correct. If you put the Windows operating system on the Macs with the Intel chip, you will need to use an antivirus, antispyware programs and a firewall. I would use Windows for business and the Mac OS for home use along with surfing the net. I like the idea of having a dual-boot option and with the iBook I can have it all for about a thousand bucks! I also think that Apple makes a better product (laptop) than Dell.

By the way, because I use voice recognition, I will use Dragon for Windows and IBM ViaVoice for the Mac.

[teyrn]

I'm not one to duel boot. I would spend 2 grand and have a computer to run windows and a computer to run OSX. I have always hated jumping back and forth between operating systems. It is getting to the point where you can do almost the same thing on a MAC that you can on a Windows machine. MAC is catching up in the software deptartment mainly because of OSX and open source. You all can have your duel booting MAC's I'll stick to my single boot Windows machine and my unix box next to it.

[Scorpion]

Teryn, I can understand what you're saying, but not everyone has the room or the money for multiple computers. I like the idea of being able to run Windows on a Mac, in case the need ever arises, but then I haven't had that need since 2003. Maybe then it's just the geek in me that wants to boot Windows from time to time and play around, maybe feel a bit nostalgic (the first computer I owned was a 386 PC running Windows 3.1). Apple's OSX is the better operating system of the two, no doubt in my mind. As for software, the only real hole in the Mac's available software library is games.

[SCI-Nurse]

I use a Windows PC at work, but have an Apple computer at home. I don't miss Windows. I have daily lock-ups and some crashes on my Windows machine. I HATE Microsoft Word with a vengence, and Outlook is a disaster for e-mail as far as I am concerned. I consider Bill Gates the spawn of the devil and curse his name whenever Windows won't let me do what I need to do at work.

I have never had a crash using OS X.4 on my Apple. It is VERY fast. I don't waste time playing computer games, so I don't miss that. If I wanted to (and I don't!) I could install the Microsoft Windows Office package for the Mac to use things like PowerPoint or Word. If you install the Windows operating system on your computer, you are opening yourself lots more viruses and other problems. You will have to boot to either Windows or Apple OS, they will not run simultaneously. I am distressed that Apple is selling out like this.

(KLD)

[PN]

Windows on Mac, Simultaneously

By Pete Mortensen
12:00 PM Apr, 06, 2006

Apple Computer's surprise software release allowing the company's newest Intel-based Macs to run Windows has put "virtualization" -- an alternative, and arguably superior, method of achieving the same result -- in the spotlight.

Released Wednesday, Apple's Boot Camp beta installs Microsoft's OS in a partition on the hard drive, thus offering Mac users the option of booting up either with OS X or Windows XP. Virtualization, by contrast, allows Macs to run Windows and Mac OS X not just on the same machine, but at the same time, with only a slight drop in performance.

Although Apple says it has no plans to create a virtualization product for the Mac, the advantages of this approach are strong enough that a number of rivals are rushing to market with Mac virtualization products even as Apple offers its dual-boot option.

On Thursday, Herndon, Virginia-based Parallels released a public beta of its virtualization software package, Parallels Workstation 2.1.

"What's the value of a dual-boot solution? Is there any value? I don't really think so," said Parallels marketing manager Benjamin Rudolph.

Wired News (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/computers/0,70604-0.html?tw=wn_index_3)

[Andy]

I dont get it, if you want XP, just buy a Windows machine. Best I can tell, Apples have no big advantage over Window machines other than maybe user familiarity or lack of exploitable holes in the OS (although I think there would be a ton of those found by hackers if the platform was more popular). Oh well, I guess it is a Chevy vs. Ford type thing. One good thing about this release is that it really turned up Apple's stock, made some good $ on a one day options flip, but I cant see buying an Apple computer on this software.

[Scorpion]

Andy, if you don't try an Apple, you may never understand why they're better than Windows machines. :) As for not getting why anyone would want an Apple to boot up Windows and not just buying a Windows machine, like I said earlier, some people simply don't have the money or the space for two machines.

Best I can tell, Apples have no big advantage over Window machines other than maybe user familiarity or lack of exploitable holes in the OS (although I think there would be a ton of those found by hackers if the platform was more popular).
Actually, the Mac OS is more stable and reliable, and while I agree more hackers would try to find and exploit holes in the Mac OS if more people used it, I seriously doubt there would be many holes found. There are viruses that have been created for Macs, but apparently, it's not an easy task.

I started with a Windows machine in '93, but I eventually found the Mac to be a superior machine in most regards. I still don't like the big difference in price, though the Mac Mini eliminates that problem for many people as well.

[LaoziSailor]

Scorp,
Andy, if you don't try an Apple, you may never understand why they're better than Windows machines. :) There is an almost ethereal view to the different "feel", like wearing blue jeans or silk pants.As for not getting why anyone would want an Apple to boot up Windows and not just buying a Windows machine, like I said earlier, some people simply don't have the money or the space for two machines.
There's people that will jump over rocks in the river to get to the other side. [...and I'm not talking about a stream, more like one of your olympic kayaking courses]...others will want to cross by block and tackle, yet others, will expect a bridge.
Actually, the Mac OS is more stable and reliable, and while I agree more hackers would try to find and exploit holes in the Mac OS if more people used it, I seriously doubt there would be many holes found. There are viruses that have been created for Macs, but apparently, it's not an easy task.
Wasn't the story that Gates stole Windows from Jobs who in turn stole if from PARC? Did you know Jobs's current tenure as iCEO (interim CEO) is for life - or as long as he wants it.

I started with a Windows machine in '93, but I eventually found the Mac to be a superior machine in most regards. I still don't like the big difference in price, though the Mac Mini eliminates that problem for many people as well.
Microsoft first shipped Windows in 1985 and Intel introduced the 80386 processor, and IBM is twisting Gates' arm to produce OS/2 (it's really to bad how IBM wrote up the contracts and gave Gates rights in OS/2, so IBM could not give the OS away, which had they been able to, would have changed your life, Scorp, Chicago (codename for the project) would have never seen the day of light and you would never have touched such a fraud of an operating system -- I digress) I did some early work at IBM starting with DOS 1.0 and up to OS/2 but when it came time to give my ex-brother in law a recomendation I suggested:

http://lowendmac.com/compact/byte0284.jpg (http://lowendmac.com/compact/128k.shtml)

Sweet, no?, BTW click on the magazine and the picture of Lisa.

It is really too bad Lisa never made it

http://lowendmac.com/orchard/05/lisa/lisa1photo.jpg (http://lowendmac.com/orchard/05/1005.html)


Cheers!