Recently in Macs Category

Here's the press release. Astonishing.

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.”

Boot Camp simplifies Windows installation on an Intel-based Mac by providing a simple graphical step-by-step assistant application to dynamically create a second partition on the hard drive for Windows, to burn a CD with all the necessary Windows drivers, and to install Windows from a Windows XP installation CD. After installation is complete, users can choose to run either Mac OS X or Windows when they restart their computer.

Pricing & Availability
The public beta of Boot Camp is available immediately as a download at www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp, and is preview software licensed for use on a trial basis for a limited time. The final version of Boot Camp will be available as a feature in the upcoming Mac OS X version 10.5 “Leopard.” Apple does not provide support for installing or running Boot Camp and does not sell or support Microsoft Windows software. Apple welcomes user feedback on Boot Camp at bootcamp@apple.com.

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.

The poor old Inquirer, which put together quite a persuasive and technically stunning article on why MacIntels will never run Windows XP, has had to backpedal a bit now that someone has managed to prove them wrong.

I'd actually been semi-persuaded by the article, since I'm no big BIOS/EFI expert. Should have known that just like in Jurassic Park, like life hackers will find a way.

There's still a little way to go before XP will get things like hardware acceleration of graphics on the Mactel, but it shouldn't be too far off now. I have faith in them. They're a clever bunch, hackers.

There have been some dumb arguments floating around the web on various sites, ever since the first of the new Mac 'viruses' appeared on the scene, but this one takes the biscuit. Essentially, goes the argument, since any malware that affects a Unix system such as OS X will be capable of deleting all your personal files, Unix security is as poor as Windows'.

What would the solution to that be then? Presumably stopping a user from deleting their own files.

Dear oh dear.

I'm still toying with the idea of buying one of the new Intel iMacs, now that Apple has ditched the 17“ PowerPC iMac. The news that the iMac Dual Core has relatively low power usage has certainly made me think again, since I'd like something that's relatively environmentally friendly and that produces less heat. Maybe next month then.

Someone's managed to get Linux booting on an iMac. It took a bit of patching to do it, but it does boot. Of course, booting is a whole lot different from running perfectly, and there may be issues around various drivers for graphics cards, etc, that need resolving. But it's still very promising.

Interesting article over on the Inquirer about why Windows XP will never work on a Mac. Coming from the Mac world, I still don't have a firm grasp yet on the intricacies of EFI v BIOS and so on, so I have no idea how accurate it is. Nevertheless, the broad strokes of the piece seem reasonable and seem to be confirmed by most of what I've been ferreting out over the last month or so.

One of the big announcements of MacWorld was the licensing by Microsoft of Flip4Mac's QuickTime components as a replacement for Windows Media Player (WMP) for Macintosh.

On the face of it, this should be good: one fewer media player to worry about; Windows media files accessible within any QuickTime-aware application; a promise of continued updates.

Unfortunately, practice has thrown a spanner in the theoretical works. For one thing, Flip4Mac isn't very good. It frequently has problems displayed WMV content in browsers, despite an accompanying plug-in. It also is slow at converting WMV within QuickTime, a process no other codec I know of has to go through anyway.

But the biggest problem is wretched DRM. Since QuickTime sends a different user agent to servers than Windows Media Player, streams such as those used by radio station XFM will refuse to work with Flip4Mac. It also seems to have even more problems that WIndows Media Player when it comes to viewing content such as Channel 4's The IT Crowd previews; while WMP at least has a stab at redirecting to the Channel 4 web site, Flip4Mac just serves garbled music and a white screen.

Unless Flip4Mac gets a big boost of Microsoft R&D, Mac users are going to be third-class citizens when it comes to Windows Media content. Pity the poor Linux users who come in fourth though.

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but Adobe have confirmed that none of their products, including those acquired from Macromedia, are going to run natively on Intel-based Macs until next year. That means that it will be at least a year to 18 months before two of the major application suites - Microsoft Office and Creative Suite – are Intel-native.

I've been in two minds about whether to buy an iMac G5 or an iMac Dual Core (three minds, if you include the “not going to buy a new computer at all” option), but combined with the recent price drops on the G5, I'm now pretty much erring in favour of the G5. After all, for half of the iMac's lifespan, it won't run the apps I use every day at full speed. With Windows XP booting and Virtual PC for Intel chips looking like extreme improbabilities at the moment as well, the G5 is definitely the better option for me.

The Chwang Yi Company is now offering a $24 Skype handset for Mac users, complete with OS X control panel for controlling ring tones and more. It supposedly offers International shipping. I haven't tried it so I can't endorse it, but that's two handsets now, including the Ipevo one I mentioned earlier. That doesn't offer international shipping, though.

Technorati Tags: macs, skype

Ars Technica has put the iMac Dual Core through its paces. Following on from my entry earlier today about booting Windows, we now have confirmation that the iMac won't boot Vista either:

“Just for kicks, I tried to boot from a Windows XP installer CD. No dice. I then tried booting from a Vista installer DVD (Build 5270). Again, no dice.”

Things are looking up for Virtual PC.

Technorati Tags: macbook pro, macs, mactels, macworld, virtual pc

Someone's finally got hold of an iMac Dual Core and tried to boot it into Windows XP and a variety of other PC operating systems. The results aren't promising for anyone wanting to set up a dual- or triple-boot machine, since the install disks of neither Windows XP SP2 nor SuSE Linux were recognised by the iMac as viable booting options.

The exact reason for this issue isn't clear: either Apple has deliberately included software that precludes the possibility of running different operating systems (unlikely since Apple has already issued a statement saying they wouldn't) or it might not have included the BIOS-compatibility layers necessary for its EFI firmware to work with operating systems that don't have native EFI support.

This makes an Intel-native Virtual PC for OS X that much more necessary. Worryingly for those who need to run Windows apps on their Macs, MacBU's Roz Ho has been quoted as saying Microsoft is only looking into producing a version of the software for Mactels, but has held back from a firm commitment.

I think that's entirely understandable, though. Clearly, migrating Virtual PC from PowerPC to Intel chips is far more complicated than ripping out the code for translating Intel instructions to PowerPC instructions or porting Virtual PC for Windows to OS X. If Mactels were simply able to boot Windows straight from the standard installer disks and then run it natively once installed, where would the incentive be for anyone to buy Virtual PC? Virtual PC offers other features that make it more desirable than just simple Windows emulation (think of the roll-back options, the ability to archive just a single file when you want to backup a whole PC, the ability to share files between OS X and Windows and so on), but for most people those features probably wouldn't be enough to justify the purchase. So I think Microsoft could be forgiven for deciding that creating a Mactel-friendly Virtual PC really wouldn't be worth the investment if that were the case.

With direct booting off the menu, though, that puts the MacBU in a far better position. The investment necessary for the port will probably be quite high - remember how long it took to get a G5-compatible version of Virtual PC up and running then imagine how much extra work a complete change in processor architecture brings to the table. But without instruction translation required any longer, Virtual PC's emulation could potentially run at near-native levels.

That would give the software real selling points: buy Virtual PC and you get easy, drag and drop Windows XP installation, Windows running identically to on a PC but in its own little sandbox so it can't do any damage if it gets infected with viruses, and you'll have complete access to all your OS X files and programs at the same time.

If anyone can get Windows to run natively on a Mac, it's Microsoft. If they can't do it because Apple hasn't included BIOS emulation in its firmware (or for some other reason I can't think of right now), then probably nobody can without doing some hefty boot driver programming work. That would certainly put native Windows out of reach of ordinary Mac users and make Virtual PC for Mactels the only real solution for a dual boot machine.

So think of any future MacBU announcements about Virtual PC as a litmus test. If they say it'll be discontinued, then in all probability, it's because running Windows natively on a Mactel is possible. After all, Virtual PC is a profitable product so they'd have no reason to discontinue it otherwise.

But, if the MacBU announces Virtual PC for Mactel will be forthcoming then that'll be almost certain confirmation that native Windows on Mactels is impossible.

To be honest, I'd really rather have that than native Windows anyway so I'll be keeping my fingers crossed.

UPDATE: I should probably have mentioned that Windows Vista includes EFI support. Since that'll be out at the start of 2007 (on the current schedule) and it'll probably be the best part of a year before a Virtual PC for Mactels could be produced, whether Vista will work on a Mactel will be a big factor in determining Virtual PC's future. As of yet, no one has tried installing Vista on a Mactel and reported the results publicly.

Technorati Tags: macs, mactels, macworld, virtual pc

Updates and related entries
January 17, 2006: Ars Technica has put the iMac Dual Core through its paces. Following on from my entry earlier today about booting Windows, we now have confirmation that the iMac won't boot Vista either: “Just for kicks, I tried to boot...

I've noticed an odd thing about Safari since I've updated to OS X 10.4.4. It won't refresh its RSS feeds, except when I bookmark a new RSS feed. I'm sure the Syndication Agent must be crashing or something, but nothing's showing in the system logs.

Thankfully, the down-to-earth Tom Yager hasn't been fooled by Steve's marketing skills and gives us all a refreshing taste of reality. I knew those built-in iSights had to be rubbish...

Technorati Tags: macs, iMacs, macbook pro

Whatever happened to my friend's iBook? If you recall, it was being repaired after its logic board packed up. He sent it to Apple. Apple returned it, and it didn't work. So he sent it to a local firm – with Apple paying – to have it repaired again. And then nothing happened.

Well, it turns out that when Apple fixed his logic board, they knackered his hard drive at the same time. The firm replaced his hard drive and now it works fine. Of course, he lost loads of data since he hadn't backed it up. Oh dear.

But naughty Apple. Don't break things when you're repairing your customers' computers!

If you've been following my external hard drive problems, you might be wondering if OS X 10.4.4 fixes the corruption.

No. It doesn't. Looks like I'll just have to forget about using it for now: it can't even convert a WAV file to AAC or import a few photos into my external iPhoto library correctly. Since I'm probably going to order myself an iMac dual core soon and I'll ensure it either has a 250GB or 500GB internal drive, it won't be an issue I'll have to revisit, hopefully. But Apple really should fix this problem.