Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Operating Systems Software Businesses Intel Apple

Multi-booting Mac Intel Developer Machines 273

Posted by timothy
from the multiplicity dept.
ytsejam-ppc writes "Ross Carlson over at Jasbone.com has a great article up on how to install multiple operating systems on the new Intel based developer edition Macs. His particular setup triple-booted Mac OS X 10.4.1 (Intel), CentOS 4 and Windows XP. Just makes me drool."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Multi-booting Mac Intel Developer Machines

Comments Filter:
  • Yes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OverlordQ (264228) on Monday July 25, 2005 @07:42PM (#13161226) Journal
    And how many of us have these developer machines?

    What that? Zero . . ah ok . . .
    • Re:Yes (Score:2, Informative)

      by OverlordQ (264228)
      How is this a troll/flamebait? It's a logical comment, the number of us normal users who have or have access to the Developer Mac boxen is next to nil.
      • Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)

        by daveschroeder (516195) * on Monday July 25, 2005 @07:57PM (#13161332)
        And yet, people have them.

        Further, by the end of 2007, all Macs will be Intel based (according to Apple's initial statement).

        So people might care to see what types of things may, and likely will, be possible.

        Especially people who might want to buy *one* machine, say, a laptop, and run Mac OS X, Windows, Linux, and other x86 OSes on it, all at native speeds. And yes, one way or another, this will likely be trivially possible. See my other [slashdot.org] posts [slashdot.org] for more information.

        In other words, this is very interesting to that group of people. Which, among slashdot readers, is probably quite a lot.
        • that doesn't really change much, the original post should not be flamebait. hardly ever do discussions arise, involving doing things to items that are only available under nda. how many articles did you see showing how to build the open solaris source code before it went public?
    • Re:Yes (Score:3, Funny)

      by sribe (304414)
      And how many of us have these developer machines?

      I do! In fact, I've had it for close to a month now, and it looks great sitting there on the floor behind my chair. I'm really hoping that after ADHOC I'll have a chance to like, uh, plug it in and uh, see if it boots, or something...

      I'm not even kidding.
    • Re:Yes (Score:3, Informative)

      by HairyCanary (688865)
      If you wanted one, you could buy it for 1500 bucks. It costs 500 bucks to get into the developer program so you're eligible to buy one in the first place, and a thousand bucks for the machine itself. I've thought about it...
  • This looks dandy and all...I'd love to have a developer machine to do this to. But...will it run Linux and Windows on the actual machines in production that we'll see in a couple years?
    • it's just a normal PC ffs.
      • by TinyManCan (580322)
        It is really odd that Apple is now in a position to leverage.... Windows XP to break into a larger market. Think about that for a second.

        Believe it or not, there are tons of people out there with more than enough money to buy just about any kind of computer they want. Paying 2%0 more or even 80% more than the cheapest available comparable system is no biggie for these people.

        What they do want tho is a system that they know will work for them. Many, many people are afraid of the big switch to PPC Mac OSX b
    • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Monday July 25, 2005 @07:51PM (#13161289)
      There's no reason to believe it won't.

      See my post here [slashdot.org] for more details. At the very, very least it could run Linux and Windows nicely in a virtual machine environment, but it's very likely that yes, they will run Linux - and Windows - regardless of whether the final machines utilize BIOS, Open Firmware, or EFI. Why wouldn't they? Especially in the case of Linux. PowerPC Macs run several varieties of Linux today; why wouldn't they also be able to run on production Intel-based Macs, even if they make the surprising decision of using Open Firmware? And there's no reason Apple would want to *prevent* people from installing Linux, or even Windows, as Phil Schiller himself has said Apple won't do anything to preclude people from installing Windows on Intel-based Macs.

      This is a huge coup for Apple: imagine a laptop that can seamlessly run Windows XP and Linux - PLUS Mac OS X. Or better yet, run one environment (such as Mac OS X) and have your other environments in a VM at essentially full speed. It would be a dream machine, to be sure.
      • I agree. This is a giant coup for Apple. To have your development and test machines all in one. Apple already has such a high profit margin on their boxes while PCs are such commodity items now. If this really does work, you get three machines on your Mac. Yet Steve said you couldn't just drop OS X on any PC (I'm sure there will be hacks out there for it...but still). Thus, any developer that wants a variety of environmens on just one machine will see the Mac as the only choice. Touche!
      • From the source [apple.com]:

        Macintosh computers that use an Intel microprocessor do not use Open Firmware. Although many parts of the IO registry are present and work as expected, information that is provided by Open Firmware on a PowerPC Macintosh (such as a complete device tree) is not available in the IO registry on a Macintosh that uses an Intel microprocessor.

      • That's if Apple actually support the drivers in linux and/or windows.

        Will apple open the hardware specifications so linux would work perfectly?

        Will they provide the windows driver so unsatisfied clients can return their apple computer because the hardware does not work perfectly?

        Another problem is that windows XP is quite expensive (non-OEM ver) and I don't think the apple would bundle windows XP OEM (original equipment manufacturer) in their machine.
        • Will apple open the hardware specifications so linux would work perfectly?

          There doesn't appear to be any problem with that with the current PPC models. If Yellow Dog can get Linux running well on a PowerMac G5 (and by all accounts they have), I don't see why anyone would have any trouble getting an x86 distro running just as well on a (PM)^2.

          (That's a PowerMac Pentium-M, natch.)

  • And? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Midnight Thunder (17205) * on Monday July 25, 2005 @07:44PM (#13161234) Homepage Journal
    Given these aren't production machines, this does not mean too much, especially given that these have a BIOS. There have been many suggestions that production Intel based Macs won't be using the BIOS.
    • Yes... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by daveschroeder (516195) * on Monday July 25, 2005 @07:54PM (#13161307)
      ...they likely won't be using BIOS.

      But if they're using EFI (a distinct possibility), it's still likely that Windows will be able to be directly installed.

      And even if they make the unlikely choice of Open Firmware, that doesn't stop Windows (and any other x86 OS) from running at essentially the full speed of the native underlying hardware in a virtual machine environment that someone is bound to produce. In fact, that's likely even *more* desirable to a larger number of people than the hassle of dual booting. And a VM is possible regardless of what the boot mechanism will be.
    • Bigger issue (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SuperBanana (662181) on Monday July 25, 2005 @08:50PM (#13161651)
      The bigger issue is that developers have to sign an NDA. I presume that includes discussing the machine, its internals, and so on.

      Also, as a side note- I received a call a couple of days ago from a woman in the Developer Connection group (I love those Irish accents, rowr :-)...but the accent wasn't enough for me to say yes to leasing the intel developer machine.

      "Have you heard about our offer for development systems to ADC Select members?"

      "Yep." Who hasn't? People under rocks? :-)

      "Are you interested in taking advantage of the offer?"

      "Nope, sorry."

      Question is, why are they having to do this? Is reception to the development system lukewarm? Did they make a whole bunch, and are just being aggressive about getting 'em out to people? (which would be a good idea). I guess $1k isn't bad at all if you're a serious developer (I'm not).

      • Re:Bigger issue (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Drakino (10965) <{ten.ofniinim} {ta} {todhsals_d}> on Monday July 25, 2005 @10:12PM (#13162100) Journal
        Question is, why are they having to do this?

        Likely to ensure that any developers living under a rock do find out about it, and get their hands on the technology they need to fully ensure that their Mac application runs on new machines day 1. Apple is very concerned with third party application compatibility on the new platform, as they know many of the Mac users depend on not only Apple solutions, but those also from Microsoft (Office), Adobe (Photoshop) and many others.
      • Re:Bigger issue (Score:3, Insightful)

        by First Person (51018)

        Very simple. Mindshare. Get all the developers focused on the new platform and the transition will happen that much easier and faster.

      • Interest in the machines seems pretty high, but I think Steve et al want to cover all bases by actively pushing them.

        The best way to judge the success of the program is to notice that every company I've heard of that makes Mac software has been enthusiastic, from Microsoft and Adobe to Delicious Monster and beyond.

        What I don't like about the program is that you're leasing the machine instead of buying it, and have to return it at the end. I hate to pay $999 for something I can't even keep!

        D
  • This is nice... (Score:5, Informative)

    by daveschroeder (516195) * on Monday July 25, 2005 @07:44PM (#13161238)
    ...and this is easy since the Developer Transition Platform is just running a generic Intel motherboard, generic Intel video chipset, an Intel Pentium 4 660 processor with HT, and a standard Intel BIOS (NOT a Phoenix BIOS as has been incorrectly reported elsewhere), but what will really be great is when someone makes a Virtual PC- or vmware-like product (perhaps even one of those products themselves) that is a virtual machine that runs under Mac OS X that allows running essentially any x86 OS at near-full speed, side by side with Mac OS X, without having to reboot.

    Since it will be running on x86 hardware, processor instructions do not have to be emulated: they can run natively at near-full speed of the underlying hardware.

    Further, though Apple will do nothing [appleintelfaq.com] to stop users from installing Windows on production Intel-based Macintosh systems, it's likely that the production systems will evolve beyond the generic hardware that makes the Developer Transition Platform. Apple itself has said, "Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product." [appleintelfaq.com] This means there may be additional specialized hardware for which Windows drivers and specialized support profiles will not be maintained by Apple. Of course, this isn't stopping anyone from making them, and Intel has said that Intel-based Macs will use commodity Intel processors, chipsets, and other support components [appleintelfaq.com], but it might not be quite as seamless as just popping in a Windows CD and installing (though it very well could be).

    Let's also not forget that the production machines may not be [appleintelfaq.com] - and likely will not be - using BIOS, rendering useless any such conventional PC multi-boot configurations. (But even with EFI [intel.com] or Open Firmware [openfirmware.org], there's no reason Apple couldn't maintain a robust multi-boot system.)

    The point is that a virtual machine product could offer a supported configuration for x86 OSes, including Windows, Linux variants, etc., without the headache and hassle of rebooting into another OS. Sure, dual/multi-booting has benefits, and certainly this will be possible on even the production hardware, but most users would likely prefer a Virtual PC-like environment for running x86 OSes/applications without rebooting.

    On this topic, one wonders if Microsoft will be the entity that releases this first. After all, they've already got Virtual PC for Mac, and Virtual PC for Windows (and Microsoft Virtual Server) is exactly this type of virtual machine product, albeit for Windows. On one hand, you can argue that for Microsoft, it's just another copy of Windows sold, so why should they care? But on the other hand, if they make a first-class VM product for Mac OS X that runs Windows (and other x86 OSes) seamlessly at near-full speed of the native hardware, it definitely assists in the sales of more machines designed primarily to run Mac OS X, which could be a poor strategic choice...

    But even if Microsoft doesn't do it, let's hope someone like EMC does with vmware.

    For more general information, see http://appleintelfaq.com/ [appleintelfaq.com].
    • Re:This is nice... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by fermion (181285)
      and certainly this will be possible on even the production hardware, but most users would likely prefer a Virtual PC-like environment for running x86 OSes/applications without rebooting.

      Pretty much that is what I expect to do. I would not feel comfortable running the MS mess outside of a good sandbox that can be cheaply and easily destroyed and rebuilt. My hope is that someone will come up with such a sandbox, replacing VPC, which I did not upgrade after MS acquired it. I did enjoy the ability to run N

    • The parent poster has provided a nice explanation of what Apple x86 machines "might" do, but it rather misses the point of what Apple is in business for.

      Apple sells complete hardware/software IT solutions, not just hardware and not just software. You can be certain that Apple will make certain that their commercial release of OS/X-x86 will not run on commodity Wintel hardware, by design. The only way that Apple can ascertain that their new software will run on only their new x86 hardware is through the u
      • Whether or not Microsoft wants Windows XP or Windows Vista to run on Intel-based Macs, it will.

        Also, I never said that Mac OS X would run on commodity hardware. I'm saying the exact opposite: that Windows will run on Apple's Intel-based hardware. But on this topic, if you're arguing that the only way Apple can keep Mac OS X on its own hardware is via DRM, you'd be wrong. Apple currently specifies that Mac OS X can only run on Apple-branded hardware in the EULA. The legality aspect alone would relegate runn
        • Whether or not Microsoft wants Windows XP or Windows Vista to run on Intel-based Macs, it will.Maybe on a few desktops belonging to sufficiently clever hackers. But there will be no broad, supportable deployment of such hacks -- Microsoft and Apple lawyers will see to that.

          Not to mention the economic absurdity of running Windows on a Mac. Even with cheaper Intel chipsets, a Mac is just not a commodity system.

          • I wonder what the purpose of Virtual PC [microsoft.com], Guest PC [lismoresystems.com], bochs [sourceforge.net], etc., are for then?

            Many people run Windows on Mac OS X today (under emulators), and it's absolutely horridly slow. You're telling me that people won't want to do this at the full native speed of the underlying hardware?

            It won't be "on a few desktops belonging to sufficiently clever hackers" (in fact, that description more appropriately describes the number of people who will be running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware); rather, it will be routinely d
        • I find it interesting that you believe Apple will rely on nothing more than their EULA to keep OS/X-x86 off of commodity Wintel machines. The processor/chipset that Intel wowed Apple with may not appear in every Wintel box, but there will be a large (and growing) number on the market. And DRM that is as closely linked between the processor and the chipset that hacking/breaking the DRM will be difficult, if not impossible. The "Palladium"/"Trusted Computing" hardware platform is not only a MSFT wet dream
      • Re:This is nice... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Nugget (7382)
        I think you are overlooking or handwaving past the total pain in the ass that "dual booting" represents for people who actually have work to get done. People using VirtualPC today, and presumably on future Intel-based Macs are overwhelmingly NOT going to want to reboot to an entirely different operating system just to run the applications for which they require Windows compatibility. Closing all my native applications to reboot into Windows to run my handful of Windows apps is not at all the same experien
    • Re:This is nice... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by silvertear72 (899704)
      I'm looking forward to being able to dual/multi boot OSes on one machine, but my friend may not share the same sentiments as I do. He's a Mac enthusiast and if he ever gets one of these machines, he won't know whether to hug it because of the Mac OS or to set it on fire because of it's ability to boot Windows. I had suggested that he do both, but that doesn't sound like a good idea either...
    • but what will really be great is when someone makes a Virtual PC- or vmware-like product (perhaps even one of those products themselves) that is a virtual machine that runs under Mac OS X that allows running essentially any x86 OS at near-full speed, side by side with Mac OS X, without having to reboot.

      Your scenario requires people to buy Apple x86 hardware to run legal copies of MacOS X for Intel. It's far more likely that people will run MacOS X under a VM on Windows or Linux and avoid the Apple T

      • LOL!

        That's funny.

        You won't be able to legally (or in a supported fashion) run Mac OS X on anything but Apple-branded hardware.

        So it's FAR more likely that in order to run Mac OS X, people will buy a Mac. You know, like they do today and have been doing for over 21 years (and over four years for Mac OS X).

        Will there be people who will pirate Mac OS X (or perhaps even buy it) and run it in completely unsupported configurations under Windows or Linux on commodity x86 hardware? Sure. But the number will be
    • Re:This is nice... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by suzerain (245705)

      That Apple/Intel FAQ makes many assumptions and declarations without any basis in fact.

      A few examples:

      It ignores the New York Times articles which offered the most compelling information for why the switch happened: namely that Apple demanded certain pricing from IBM that IBM refused to give them. I guess they omitted that because it reflects poorly on Apple?

      It says that the 68k to PowerPC switch was "as seamless as practical", and says that they have completed a switch of this magnitude befor

      • Re:This is nice... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Nexum (516661) on Tuesday July 26, 2005 @01:18AM (#13162829)
        Note please: Market Share != Customer Base.

        As you imply in your post.
      • Apple had about 12% market share when it began the PowerPC transition, and 5% afterward. I mean, yes, they made their transition, but it was certainly not "seamless" there was a major developer outcry, and they lost most of their customer base. I think it's debateable, therefore, how well it went.

        Wow. Considering how many different "start" and "end" dates people will cite for the transtion from 68k to PowerPC, I think we need some more information as to what time period you're specifying for Apple losing
      • It ignores the New York Times articles which offered the most compelling information for why the switch happened: namely that Apple demanded certain pricing from IBM that IBM refused to give them. I guess they omitted that because it reflects poorly on Apple?

        That's just as much speculation as anything else, and, even if true, is itself was probably tied to the fact that IBM missed its 3GHz part delivery commitment to Apple by over a year. In other words, the assertion that Apple switched for these reasons [appleintelfaq.com]
  • by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) on Monday July 25, 2005 @07:45PM (#13161240) Journal
    Make some partitions. Put the OS of your choice on each partition.

    For our next /. story we'll be demonstrating how to install debian on a PC running in a country where the only available electrical power is at 230V.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25, 2005 @07:46PM (#13161252)
    OS X is closed source. This means that it is the work of the devil - its purpose is to make the end users eat babies.

    Linux is the only free OS. Yes the BSD lincenses may appear more free, but as they have no restrictions, they are actually less free than the GPL. You see, restricting the end user more actually makes them more free than not putting restrictions on them. You must be a dumb luser for not understanding this.

    And you obviously dont have a real job. A real job involves being a student or professional academic. You see, academics are the ones who know all about productivity - if you work for a commercial organisation you obviously do not know anything about computers. Usability is stupid. Whats wrong with the command line? If you cant use the command line then you shouldnt be using a computer. vi should be the standard word processor - you are such a luser if you want to use Word. Installing software should have to involve recompiling the kernel of the OS. If you dont know how to do this, you are a stupid luser who should RTFM. Or go to a Linux irc channel or newsgroup. After all, they are soooo friendly. If you dont know how the latest 2.6 kernel scheduling algorithm works then they will tell you to stop wasting their time, but they really are quite supportive.

    Oh, and M$ is just as evil as Apple. Take LookOUT for instance. You could just as easily use Eudora. Who needs groupware anyway, a simple email client should be all we use (thats all we use as academics, why cant businesses be any different).

    And trend setters - Linux is the trend setter. It may appear KDE is a ripoff from XP, but thats because M$ stole the KDE code. We all know they have GPL'ed code hidden in there somewhere (but not the things that dont work, only the things that work could possibly have GPL'ed code in it).

    And Apple is the suxor because they charge people for their product. We all know that its a much better business model to give all your products away for free. If you charge for anything, then you are allied with M$ and will burn in hell.
  • Old news... (Score:3, Informative)

    by hongree (902595) on Monday July 25, 2005 @07:46PM (#13161257)
    see... [thinksecret.com] unrelated news: see... [overheardintheuk.com]
  • This is nice but... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Zweideutig (900045) on Monday July 25, 2005 @07:49PM (#13161278)
    What about 64-bit chips? These Pentium 4-based Macs are 32-bit, I was hoping Apple would be heading in the direction of 64-bit like they started to do with G5. Are they going to use Xeon chips in the high end machines, perhaps?
    • ... that i read the actual chip that Apple will be using does not publicly exist yet. i don't know much of anything about Intel's roadmap and if it will be based on the M series but i thought it was supposed to be a chip that was slated for release Spring 2006.

      are people are getting hung up on the fact that the developer machines are not the new Apple machines 1 or 2 years early. in theory everything rewritten for these test machines will work fine on the new ones. would that mean that software may not be
    • First of all, shipping Intel-based machines probably won't even be using the Pentium 4; but:

      http://appleintelfaq.com/#7 [appleintelfaq.com]

      What about 64-bit computing?

      Apple has not forgotten about 64-bit computing, or x86-64. However, Apple is trying to make the initial phase of the transition as simple as possible. 64-bit is a requirement for systems utilizing more than 4GB of RAM, which will be a necessity for some applications in the future, and is currently possible on today's Apple systems; Apple knows 64-bit capabi
  • Be? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sootman (158191) on Monday July 25, 2005 @07:50PM (#13161284) Homepage Journal
    If it's an Intel box, it should be able to run BeOS as well. :-)
  • by stratjakt (596332) on Monday July 25, 2005 @07:56PM (#13161325) Journal
    It makes you drool..

    LOL, I cant wait for the first round of (serious) posts that think Macs are better than PCs because they run Windows XP.

    Zealots are too much.
    • I don't think you'll be seeing that. Macs were better before. Now they've just been sullied. :-)

      • Right.

        Rather than supporting the same kind of architecture monoculture that countless numbers of Apple customers, and even Jobs, have scorned vehemently for so many years, I wonder how many will rush at Lenovo's PPC workstations or the AMD64?

        Seems Intel hardware is nearly as cheap as sentiment these days.
        • The AMD64, while pretty nice and very cost-effective, is still a x86 derivative. I might look at the IBM/Lenovo PPC workstations; that might be something interesting for other people who are dissatisfied with the x86 monopoly (like myself).

          And don't forget we still have Sun workstations. The cheapest Sun Blade 150 workstation has a 550MHz UltraSPARC IIi processor with 256MB RAM and an 80GB hard drive for about $1,400 (about the cost of a used single-processor Power Mac G5 these days). If you win the

    • Yeah it's pretty funny. I don't own a Mac, I use a PC and at home I primarily use it for gaming. If an Intel Mac could dual boot to Windows XP it would make it more attractive to me. I like the UNIX underpinnings of OS X (I use FreeBSD and Linux at work) but I'm not about to pay more money to give up Windows gaming.
      That being said, I'm sure Apple's Intel Macs will have the same limited set of hardware options as the current Macs.
    • I think you're late by about a month, but I'll add another one: hardware that runs both OS X and Windows is better for my needs than hardware that runs only Windows.

      You sound like you're pretty eager to hear that, so, glad I could help.
    • Installing Windows has a tendency to make you drool. It's just an unavoidable fact. In fact, in the (as yet unpublished) Windows installation manual, the first step is to get one of those keyboard cover membranes (you know, the ones they used to put on all the lab PC's in high school). That way, you won't short anything out or have burnt lips from becoming the shortest path to ground.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25, 2005 @08:11PM (#13161413)
    July 21, 2005 Multibooting Intel based Macs - A Step-by-step How to Guide Disclaimer: We have read the NDA from Apple and do not see that this violates it. If we are wrong however someone please let us know and we'll happily remove the following. It is NOT or intention to violate this NDA or to make anyone upset. We are only trying to help others in the community by benefiting from the work we have done

    By Ross Carlson [mailto] and Joel Wampler [mailto]

    Quick Guide [slashdot.org] | Full Guide [slashdot.org] | Install OS X [slashdot.org] | Install Windows XP [slashdot.org] | Install CentOS Linux [slashdot.org] | Drivers [slashdot.org]

    In this guide we'll take you through installing multiple operating systems on the Intel based Developer Macintosh machine. This guide was put together by Ross Carlson [mailto] and Joel Wampler [mailto] to hopefully get you through building a machine that can run every major operating system currently available. This guide takes about 2 hours total. Let's get started...

    First there are a few things that you'll need:
    • Decide what OSes you'll install
    • Mac OS X Intel disk (the one that came with the Intel Mac)
    • Windows XP SP2 CD (if you want XP - we tested with a already SP2'ed disc)
    • Windows XP CD Key (obviously, just being safe...)
    • CentOS 4 [centos.org] CD's (or your favorite distro - we got kernel panic's every time we tried Fedora Core 4 and CentOS worked great)
    • CD Ejection Device (otherwise known as a paper clip - just in case...)

    Notes:

    • You're going to need a Linux install so you can use it's boot loader for your OS selection menu.
    • We had major issues with Fedora Core 4. At first we thought it was an issue with HyperThreading support, and we did a "linux ht=off" at boot. This worked once but never again?!? Joel was also too lazy to make some Slackware CD's with SATA support so we just went with CentOS since we had it handy.
    • Keep the CD Ejection Device handy - Apple thought it was a good idea to remove the button from the DVD drive so the only way to eject a disc if you need to is with the OS or the CD Ejection Device. So if you can't boot into an OS and you want to remove the CD you'll need that...

    Quick Guide: - Return to Top [slashdot.org]
    If you're like us and hate reading through pages of crap to get things done here is the quick version of what you'll need to do. We'll explain this step-by-step down below.

    • Boot from the Mac OS X Install DVD
    • Use the Disk Utility within the Installer to delete ALL partitions
    • Use the drop down and select 3 partitions (if you're doing OSX/Windows/Linux) - YOU REALLY ONLY NEED A MAX OF 3!
    • Change the size of the partitions as you desire (make sure to leave room for all your OSes)
    • Set the first and third partition to "free space" - DO NOT FORMAT THEM!
    • Set the second partition to Mac Journeled - name it "OS X" (or what you want)
    • Write the partiton table
    • Exit the Disk Utility
    • Install OS X on the partition you created above (if you have more than 1 disk you did something wrong!)
    • Once OS X is installed and working put in the Windows XP CD and reboot
    • At boot make sure to hit a key so the machine boots from the XP CD
    • Create an NTFS partition on the first empty partition - you'll see the other two - ignore them. The partition you'll create will be called "E:", don't worry...
    • Exit the XP installer (AFTER you've created the partition - DO NOT proceed with setup).
    • Restart XP Setup (remember to press enter on reboot)
    • Now the first partition will be called C: - in
  • by Sv-Manowar (772313) on Monday July 25, 2005 @08:30PM (#13161517) Homepage Journal

    Obviously as developer platforms, these boxes bear no real similarity to the Intel based macs that will eventually go into production, but I'm hopeful that the ability to boot Windows on Intel macs may remain even through to production hardware. Obviously there may be issues regarding whatever bios-replacement Apple chooses to use on their hardware, but I'm sure they're also aware of the potential for dual booting macs between Windows and OS X. Whether this is something they want to embrace with their new platform (and I seem to recall Phil Schiller stating that there was no reason Windows couldn't run on an x86 mac) or whether it's something that they consider would 'taint' the Macintosh user experience remains to be seen.

    This boot setup must be a dream for some people out there with a gaming rush who would love to be able to get the best of both worlds (although the mac mini has its logical place here) . I only hope this flexibility doesn't get wiped out in production hardware..

    • Phil Shiller said that Apple would not actively be preventing people from running Windows on Apple boxes. And why would they? On the same token, why would they do any work at all to make Windows run on their boxes?

      My guess is that without a bit of work Windows will not install on the final boxes, and will always be a hack: a few people will do it, but the majority won't bother. And that would suit Apple just fine.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25, 2005 @08:35PM (#13161557)
    per the article: Other Device: There is also one of the Trusted Computing chips on the board - Windows Update will install the driver for that... sse3 and tpm are the reasons that mac os x/x86 will not run on anything other than apple devkits right now. apple's ATSServer is not compiled for i386 - with good reason: so that the 'rosetta' ppc translator is required. oah750 is 'rosetta', which has hooks to run correctly only through the presence of said TPM. executing ppc binaries manually results in a segfault. no tpm, no rosetta, no mac os x.
  • Did anyone else notice that it works just like installing more then one operating system on any machine? And arent' the only people with access to these machines supposed to be developers? Wouldn't you sort of expect them to be able to figure this out?

    Wow. You can 'partition' a hard drive, and install multiple 'operating systems'. This would only really have been news if you couldn't.

  • I thought develpers were supposed to IMPROVE technology.

    How does it help anyone to put Winblows on the same computer as OS X?

  • Linux aside, with Apple's switch and Microsoft well behind on Longhorn perhaps Apple really has a true chance to make some headaway. The next 10 years may not be like the last...for long.
  • by gabefung (902687) on Tuesday July 26, 2005 @07:50AM (#13163888) Homepage
    "Apple offers the state of the art operating system, Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard with all Intel Mac models. Your Mac is also capable booting into other operating system offer by third party. Options include Linux operating system, a brother of OS X which truely favour by your Geek brother. If desired, choose a crappy Microsoft Windows VISTA Operating System. (Which Stand for Virus, Infection, Spam, Trojan and Adware)"

    Okay that just for fun. ;-)

It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome

Working...