Multi-booting Mac Intel Developer Machines 273
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."
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
What that? Zero . . ah ok . . .
Yes... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This is nice but... (Score:3, Insightful)
The dev boxes are for making sure your software runs on intel. There's a lot of work for some of the developers out there, and they need machines now. P4s are cheap and powerful enough to do the job (without giving away all the fun secrets that Steve will undoubtedly use to fuel his RDF
http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050608.a
Re:This is nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is nice... (Score:2, Insightful)
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 NT and Mandrake in thier own little window, and will look forward to doing so again. I specifically would hope someone other that MS would do this.
Re:now for the real question (Score:3, Insightful)
Two words. (Score:0, Insightful)
Seriously, Linux zealots - shit on the pot or get the hell off.
Meaning: Either show me 1 (one!) killer reason to use Linux (besides price or messing with the source code) that isn't offered by every other OS under the sun. Or shut the hell up.
I am sick and tired of the major advantages of Linux being "cost and source code". However, I NO LONGER CARE. If I cared about having the source code, I'd use FreeBSD because the BSD licence is less restrictive than the GPL. If I cared about cost, I'd use a free OS, but probably FreeBSD because of superior documentation and organisation. Bear in mind that up-front price means absolutely nothing to most end-users, and that almost nobody wants to mess with their computer for the sake of messing with their computer.
I run Windows XP and OS X, and I don't miss the lost hours wasted over Linux trying to rebuild a kernel or troubleshoot a package dependency problem.
Re:now for the real question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:now for the real question (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But will it run Linux... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.)
i am pretty sure.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 fully optimized if these newer chips are something crazy? i have no idea. i guess they will be in the same boat as the rest of the software writing world that wants their products to work on Intel chips.
Re:MS laughs last... (Score:3, Insightful)
Approximately zero existing Mac users. If they wanted to run Windows, they'd have PCs already. Now, some future customers may buy Mactels so they can check out OS X, and then decide to go back to Windows full time, but that's still a win for Apple since they'll get profits from the hardware.
Prediction: Apple stops supporting their own OS and becomes a high-end hardware vendor and iPod seller
No. Steve has no interest in being a Microsoft thrall.
Re:now for the real question (Score:2, Insightful)
You're doing well - keep the faith. It sells.
Re:Apple will be going with Pentium M (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact, now that I think about it, the word "Pentium" was mentioned only in the context of the Developer's Transition Kit. Everything coming out of Apple regarding this, including the WWDC keynote, has detailed a switch to "Intel microprocessors" - the Xcode build rule even says "PowerPC" and "Intel". If they were only going to use different CPUs in the Pentium family (M for laptops, 4 for desktops), wouldn't they have said "Pentium processors"?
Hm.
Re:Bigger issue (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Very simple. Mindshare. Get all the developers focused on the new platform and the transition will happen that much easier and faster.
Re:But will it run Linux... (Score:3, Insightful)
Therefore, it will only be geeks/slashdot-types/hackers/people who don't mind running Mac OS X illegally in an annoyingly unsupported configuration who will be running it on non-Apple hardware.
In other words, Apple hardware is the only place where you'll be able to legally run Mac OS X on a supported hardware configuration in a supported fashion. So while some pimply engadget-and-boingboing-reading geek may have Mac OS X, Linux, Windows, Ubuntu, Debian, and all manner of other crap running on his slick little Sony Vaio, ordinary people and companies who actually want support and to, you know, run software legally, won't do this. And that represents about 99% of the marketplace.
So, as I said, this is a huge coup for Apple.
You're almost right... (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, Microsoft gets no revenue from every Mac sold. Because exactly zero Macs come with Office. They come with a *trial* of Office. Customers must still purchase it separately.
Second, a comparatively small number of people (mostly concentrated in business and institutional settings) will be the only people running Windows under virtualization. Some new customers will be added because of the speed, and perhaps some new-to-Mac customers because they can run Windows in addition to Mac OS X.
Third, people buy Macs because they want the Mac OS. Not because they secretly want to run Windows on Apple hardware. They're using or switching to Mac OS X because Windows is the steaming pile of dogshit that it is. Running Windows is only a necessity to run Windows software (and having access to the wide variety of commodity PC hardware). I'm not sure many people run Windows because it's the most stable, secure OS available. Not to mention that people who run Windows on an Intel-based Mac will likely be NOT dual-booting, but rather running it in virtualization, side by side with Mac OS X, and only doing it when they need to run Windows-specific software.
Lastly, your assertion that Apple would stop supporting Mac OS X is nothing short of hilarious. I don't even know how to respond to it. Apple might not be a "software company", but Mac OS X is entirely what draws people to the Mac platform. The fact that the hardware is excellently engineered is incidental. Further, if ANYTHING will transform Apple into a "software company", propelling Mac OS X into the larger world beyond Apple hardware when appropriate, it's this transition. In other words, the exact opposite of what you said.
In fact, the actual scenario is more or less the opposite of your entire post. But it was good entertainment!
Re:Apple will be going with Pentium M (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course it is neither troll, flamebait nor off topic - but that does not stop individuals who don't read instructions from being moderators...
Yeah and go mod this as flamebait or troll or whatever. - I've AC'ed it so I don't care. I guess that that is the only reasonable way to post or read from here anymore.
Re:This is nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 before. It says this, assuming (a) what the magnitude of this switch is before it even happens, and ignoring (b) that 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.
The FAQ contradicts itself: It correctly states in the first question that Apple announced that the first Intel-based machines would ship before mid-2006, and then down the page, in discussing "should I buy a Mac", it says "x86-based Macs won't even begin shipping until mid-2006". How the hell can they make this assertion, when Apple has announced no shipping plans? Apple could very well have Intel-based Macs available earlier than "mid-2006" (say, at Macworld in January), which would also go with what they announced (the transition begins BEFORE mid-2006). I think the answer of whether to buy a Mac now is much greyer than this FAQ implies.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out the the purpose of this "FAQ" appears to be to make people feel like "everything's going to be OK", rather than just presenting facts. I wouldn't pay much attention to it. Read the Mac press instead; whoever set that up clearly has a very pro-Mac agenda that's coloring their interpretation of things. Shit, it reads like it was written by Apple and Intel's PR departments.
(And I say all this as a Mac user...the answers to many of their questions ought to be "we don't really know".)
Re:This is nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
Dual-booting is the province of geeks who like tinkering with their machines. It's not a viable solution for the majority of users with needs which span platforms.
VirtualPC and Office for Mac are applications which I find very useful. This will not change at all when Macs switch to Intel processors. I expect to enjoy better VirtualPC performance (although it's just fine even now with the burden of architecture differences) but I don't expect to no longer want it.
Apples Trojan Horse (Score:3, Insightful)
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 because they don't know if OS X will work for them, and if it doesn't, the hardware is basically useless for them (i.e. they aren't going to install Linux and be happy with it).
With the new Intel machines, these people can now buy apple gear knowing that they can go back to XP if need be. I'd bet that a big majority of these people never get around to even installing XP.
Re:This is nice... (Score:4, Insightful)
As you imply in your post.
Multiboot sucks. Give us VMWare/OSX (Score:2, Insightful)
You run the bi-monthly Windows repair and MBR gets fuxxored - bye bye multiboot, welcome manual repair hassle.
It's a known fact that dual- or tripleboot machines spend 99% of their time in ONE environment, since booting is painful. The Windoze installation will get outdated and unpatched fast.
Partitioning is pain. The only writable FS supported by all Linux and OSX and W2K/XP is FAT32, which is fault-prone and does not support large files. Using native FS is better, but you always have space on the "wrong" partitions and disks.
It would be better if VMWare released OS X version of their workstation software. None of the hassle above since data sharing could be done using NFS/SMB and Windows repairs/reinstalls become a non-issue.
Scapegoating the 68k/PPC transition (Score:3, Insightful)
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 42% of it's marketshare. Is this the time from PowerPC being introduced in consumer markets till major apps were all PowerPC native? Till Apple stopped making 68k hardware? Or until major developers stopped making 68k versions of programs? Or until non-PowerPC machines were counted as obsolete for today's uses?
Feel free to cite studies that directly attribute the loss of marketshare completely to a "developer outcry". 68k code ran on PowerMacs. Nobody stuck a gun to the developers' heads and said they had to build PowerPC accelerated versions of code, and many makers of smaller utilities did not do so until they had to later on (like during Carbon-ation in preparation for OSX). Most did so because of the performance boost they got from it.
Also, during this same time frame, did any of the following occur?
*Wintel hardware got cheaper.
*PC gaming market exploded (not the Macintosh gaming market, but the PC game market).
*Windows got better/easier to use.
*Internet became more mainstream (and the browser wars started).
*Apple began losing education marketshare, as pressure built to pick cheaper hardware and Windows systems (because that's what they'll use in the "real world", goddarnit!).
*Consolidation in the software industry effecting development of certain programs/platforms.
I'm sure a few of these events overlap the time frame of the 68k/PPC switch and may have had a teensy hand in Mac market share decreasing from 12% to 5%, if it even did go down like that. At the moment, all you've done is throw out a figure with no chronological basis or source.
Re:This is nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
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] is valid. Further, I don't say that it was factual; it says "The following scenario likely contributed to this decision". And it very likely did. Pricing demands as a result of that situation are secondary and incidental.
It says that the 68k to PowerPC switch was "as seamless as practical", and says that they have completed a switch of this magnitude before. It says this, assuming (a) what the magnitude of this switch is before it even happens, and ignoring (b) that 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.
As another poster pointed out, market share != customer base. Sales dipped after the transition, but the 68K to PowerPC transition is widely regarded as extremely successful: Apple was able to switch processor architectures entirely, while having minimal impact on users. The fact that PowerPC has been a staple for Apple for over ten years is a testament to the success and wisdom of the transition.
Further, Apple is one of very few companies to have a transition of any type of this magnitude; and it's had not one, but two, covering hardware AND software! Both were executed successfully, so contribute to a reasoned judgement on how well Apple may execute the Intel transition.
The FAQ contradicts itself: It correctly states in the first question that Apple announced that the first Intel-based machines would ship before mid-2006, and then down the page, in discussing "should I buy a Mac", it says "x86-based Macs won't even begin shipping until mid-2006". How the hell can they make this assertion, when Apple has announced no shipping plans? Apple could very well have Intel-based Macs available earlier than "mid-2006" (say, at Macworld in January), which would also go with what they announced (the transition begins BEFORE mid-2006). I think the answer of whether to buy a Mac now is much greyer than this FAQ implies.
Jeez. Um, I see what you're trying to get at, but that's not really contradicting itself. They both say "mid-2006", and given Apple's long history of product announcements, there is absolutely NO reason to believe that these machines won't ship as late as possible while still meeting the criteria of shipping before "mid-2006" (technically, before WWDC 2006, according to jobs). Even if they shipped a couple months early, that would still be mid-2006, so your assertion of a contradiction here is really grasping. And either way, if a PowerPC-based Mac was appropriate for someone, it still is just as much today. It's up to the customer to decide whether they'd like to wait.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out the the purpose of this "FAQ" appears to be to make people feel like "everything's going to be OK", rather than just presenting facts. I wouldn't pay much attention to it. Read the Mac press instead; whoever set that up clearly has a very pro-Mac agenda that's coloring their interpretation of things. Shit, it reads like it was written by Apple and Intel's PR departments.
Um, that's because everything IS going to be OK. And the facts presented and reasons given clearly show it. It's loaded with external references. The things that aren't strictly facts are prefaced by statements such as "this will likely b
The production macs may be totally different (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But will it run Linux... (Score:2, Insightful)
There are a ton of reasons to believe that it won't run Linux or Windows when it ships. Not the least of which is the age-old axiom that states "technology products rarely work in the manner that you believe is appropriate and/or would be the most useful to you".
I find myself wondering "Why would Apple create this headache for themselves?", with the headache being additional support created by running competing products. The answer is pretty clear to me: they probably won't.
Historically speaking, if you bet on being disappointed, you aren't usually too far off the mark.