Boot Camp

[dragon wench]

After reading more and more about Windows Vista, Mac's Leopard OS (when it comes out) is beginning to look better and better.

While I would not decide on an OS based on whether or not it could run Windows based programs, I am curious about Apple's Boot Camp.

Does anyone here know a bit more about it?

Certainly, what I've read about Boot Camp makes it sound pretty good, but people here tend to be more objective in their views, so I'd be interested in experiences and opinions.

Thoughts?

Note: SYM mods, I considered placing this in the Tech forum, but this is more of a discussion thread than a request for help troubleshooting. But, if you feel it is better in the Tech forum, no worries

[BlueSky]

Yes this does sound interesting......would be very interested in any replies about or opinions....

Just sounds too good to be true.

[dragon wench]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Yes this does sound interesting......would be very interested in any replies about or opinions....

Just sounds too good to be true.

Well I'm just reading a review from 1UP where somebody tested Half-Life 2, F.E.A.R, and Oblivion on a MacBook Pro with some promising results...
So, intriguing indeed...
We shall see..

The article ends with:

Conclusion

The Intel transition is a big deal for Apple, so it's encouraging to see the company tackling it head-on. What matters to us is that the MacBook running Apple's official XP drivers is a robust, stable gaming platform capable of playing software from either side of the OS wars. While some are predicting this will be the beginning of the end for the Mac platform, the opposite seems to be true, at least anecdotally. At least a dozen platform fence-sitters have told me that the Mac's newfound ability to play PC games has broken down the last barrier to their buying a Mac as their next computer.

[The Z]

I have an Intel Mac and it's really easy to use.

Now I haven't started to run Bootcamp because my blank CDs are at my home not at my residence and I'm too cheap to buy any here, but from what I've heard (and studied) it looks really easy to use; all you need is a copy of Windows XP and a blank CD and then you basically decide how much of the hard drive you want to partition for Windows and Mac (I suppose it's possible to have more HD for Windows stuff). I have a friend who uses Bootcamp to play games and he hasn't had any problems with it and he's got the new MacBook so I'm assuming that it's pretty reliable.

[dragon wench]

Originally Posted by The Z

I have an Intel Mac and it's really easy to use.

Now I haven't started to run Bootcamp because my blank CDs are at my home not at my residence and I'm too cheap to buy any here, but from what I've heard (and studied) it looks really easy to use; all you need is a copy of Windows XP and a blank CD and then you basically decide how much of the hard drive you want to partition for Windows and Mac (I suppose it's possible to have more HD for Windows stuff). I have a friend who uses Bootcamp to play games and he hasn't had any problems with it and he's got the new MacBook so I'm assuming that it's pretty reliable.

Indeed, I've been reading about how easy it is to set up boot camp. Apparently the only dicey bit is where a screen comes up and you have to make a drive selection, if you don't hit "C" you'll totally mess up the Mac side of things.
If you do end up, at some point, trying out Boot Camp, please let us know, it would be really interesting to have a reliable report

[Vicsun]

I've been using an early beta of bootcamp on a macbook pro for about six months now, and it works like advertised. The installation was easy, and Windows is not less stable than it was on my PC. Is there anything specific you'd like to know?

If you're interested in running Windows on Mac hardware, you can also check out Parallels which lets you run XP inside OS X, and CrossoverOffice which allows you to run some Windows programs in OS X, bypassing Windows itself.

[dragon wench]

Originally Posted by Vicsun

I've been using an early beta of bootcamp on a macbook pro for about six months now, and it works like advertised. The installation was easy, and Windows is not less stable than it was on my PC. Is there anything specific you'd like to know?

If you're interested in running Windows on Mac hardware, you can also check out Parallels which lets you run XP inside OS X, and CrossoverOffice which allows you to run some Windows programs in OS X, bypassing Windows itself.

My initial questions were I suppose of a general nature. Basically I just wanted to know if it worked as well as I've read it does. As BlueSky mentioned, it initially just seemed too good to be true, since it really would be (IMO anyway) the best of both worlds. More specifically though:

* If I were to get a Mac and wanted to transfer files from my PC, would that a simple matter of booting the Mac up in Windows mode and proceeding as normal?

* I tend to like buying an all purpose computer, so how does Boot Camp run with more demanding programs, like games?

*I have read about Parallels, in your opinion which looks better?

[Vicsun]

* If I were to get a Mac and wanted to transfer files from my PC, would that a simple matter of booting the Mac up in Windows mode and proceeding as normal?
Kind of but not really. The short explanation is that you can read and modify your mac files if you pony up $50 for MacDrive. You can read and maybe modify Windows files in OS X for free in a very intuitive way, so if you simply want to transfer files from XP to OS X you will have no problems.

The long answer has to do with partitioning your hard-drive. In order to install Windows you need to split your hard-drive in two sectors, with the Windows sector being either NTFS or FAT32. NTFS is newer and better, but can't be written to from OS X because Microsoft won't release the proper specifications. FAT32 is older and more inefficient, but it's been reverse engineered so that you can both read and write on it from OS X easily. If you spend most of your time in OS X and have a relatively small Windows partition FAT32 is the way to go since it only becomes inefficient for larger drives. All of this is explained in Bootcamp.
(edit: if you want to transfer files on your Mac from your current PC you don't need Bootcamp at all; you will be able to read and thus copy files from your PC if you connect the two through LAN just like you would if you had two PCs. When it comes to writing to a PC from a Mac, the same thing as above applies i.e. you'll need your PC to be formatted as FAT32 and not NTFS)

* I tend to like buying an all purpose computer, so how does Boot Camp run with more demanding programs, like games?
If you boot into Windows, everything will run at native speed. Games and the like will run at the exact same speed as if they were installed on an equivalent PC. I've played Heroes of Might and Magic V and Rome: Total War with no problems.
That said, having to restart if you want to play a game is kind of tiresome (okay, so I'm lazy), and Macs in general have pretty shoddy graphic cards so while a brand new Mac will run new games, it would probably be a better idea to get a PC with a better graphics card if you plan on mostly using your PC for gaming. On the other hand, if you games aren't your primary concern, but merely an occasional indulgence, I'd go for the Mac as it is nicer for everyday use.

*I have read about Parallels, in your opinion which looks better?
One thing to take into consideration is that Bootcamp is free while Parallels isn't (though the aforementioned MacDrive costs about as much as Parallels). It really depends on what you want to do in Windows, though. If you're running some obscure application that has no equivalent for Mac, Parallels is way more convenient as you don't have to restart and you can use your Windows application side-by-side with your OS X applications. On the other hand, you're basically running two operating systems at the same time which means you'll have things like RAM and CPU split between OS X and Windows which in turn means it's a bad solution for anything as intensive as games (your games will only get the RAM and CPU assigned to Windows). I don't personally use Parallels because the only thing I need Windows for is the occasional game.

Basically I just wanted to know if it worked as well as I've read it does...
In general, yes it does

If my fragmented, run-on and generally hard-to-read sentence structure managed to confuse you at some point or you have any more questions to ask go ahead. I need to catch up on some Chemistry which means I'll be procrastinating in SYM for a while longer.

edit: before you buy anything from Apple you should consult this nifty guide as buying something a week before it's upgraded can be annoying.

[dragon wench]

Thanks for all the info Vicsun, much appreciated!

If you boot into Windows, everything will run at native speed. Games and the like will run at the exact same speed as if they were installed on an equivalent PC. I've played Heroes of Might and Magic V and Rome: Total War with no problems.
That said, having to restart if you want to play a game is kind of tiresome (okay, so I'm lazy), and Macs in general have pretty shoddy graphic cards so while a brand new Mac will run new games, it would probably be a better idea to get a PC with a better graphics card if you plan on mostly using your PC for gaming. On the other hand, if you games aren't your primary concern, but merely an occasional indulgence, I'd go for the Mac as it is nicer for everyday use.

Fair enough, just a question though. Isn't it possible at all to have good video cards installed on a Mac? I've done some hunting around, and it does appear upgrade cards exist, though, this isn't something I really know anything about....

[Vicsun]

Originally Posted by dragon wench

Thanks for all the info Vicsun, much appreciated!



Fair enough, just a question though. Isn't it possible at all to have good video cards installed on a Mac? I've done some hunting around, and it does appear upgrade cards exist, though, this isn't something I really know anything about....

I'm not sure, but I have a lingering memory of Apple being choosy regarding the hardware that goes into their computers.

[Moonbiter]

As far as I know (and I don't know much about Macs) the ATI Radeon X1900XT is the only above-standard video card available for Mac users who wants to play games a lot. That being said, a buddy of mine runs Boot Camp on his Mac with a standard video card, and he doesn't suffer much. He plays NWN2 on it, and there isn't any problems with the graphics as far as I can see. I mean, honestly, how much do you ask? Granted, he has a high-end machine, he's a bit of a brainiac when it comes to Macs, but IMHO we're starting to ask a little too much in the way of graphics, and as long as programs work, who cares?

Knowing you a little Wenchie, I hardly think gaming is the first priority when you buy a new machine. If the games work in a satisfactory manner, I would think that should be all you need. That being said I have an ambivalent attitude on the matter of Macs versus PCs, and OS-X versus XP/Vista. Personally I'll give Vista a chance, but I won't install it until next Christmas when the initial bugs have been weeded out. I'm sick and tired of people/average users moaning about Microsoft and Windows. I worked on a Mac for 3 years, and trust me when I say that was no walk in the park. When OS-X arrived people were throwing their workstations out the window. OS-X sold more Windows-based PCs than any ad-campaign. By all means try a Mac, but believe me when I say that professional Mac users have as many gripes with their machines as we who use PCs. They simply don't get exposed as much in the media.

My one NOK,-

[dragon wench]

@Moonbiter,
lol! Yep you have me figured out. Graphics and gaming are not my first priority in a computer. On the other hand, I do like to buy a machine that has a lifespan of at least three years, if not more (my current computer is over 5 years old). So, I'm taking everything into account. This being the case, my preference is to buy something in the mid-upper-to-highend range.
Most software, excepting games, doesn't have huge resource requirements, and while gaming certainly isn't a priority it's still something I'm looking at. In reality, the quality of games is not getting better, even if I had the machine to play recent releases, I probably would not be buying them, none especially appeal. On the other hand, I'd rather not discover two years down the road that there's actually something out there I want to play, but can't because my graphics card is not up to snuff and can't be upgraded.

As far as the whole PC versus Mac thing goes. In the past I haven't really had incredibly strong feelings on it. I'm pretty security conscious and know how to keep a PC clean, so that isn't an issue for me. Part of my interest in a Mac stems from the fact that I hate clutter and PCs are a mess of cords, while a Mac is nice and clean. Also, my SO has a Mac and I sometimes use it, once I get adjusted to the different interface I find I just prefer it, it feels more intuitive. And OK, admittedly, Microsoft's greed irritates me, but at the same time, I'm under no illusions that Apple is some kind of corporate fairy godmother.
Finally, I have been looking at both Vista and Leopard, and by far and away, I think Leopard appears to be the better OS.

One more thing to note here is that I am not planning on buying a new computer in the immediate future, if I did, it wouldn't be until late Spring, at the very earliest. I'm just scoping things out at the moment.

[Moonbiter]

Well, look upon it this way: If Mac was the dominant machine, you would have the same media bias as you have against PCs and Microsoft/Windows now. The geeks claim we should all install Linux and all our troubles will be over. If we're geeks.

IMHO we will get a machine within 5-10 years that will be able to handle most popular operating systems at the same time, and then some. Mac's Boot Camp is only an indication of what's to come. I've previously stated that I grew up with MS-DOS and later Windows. I'm not a geek, but when something very rarely is wrong with the system, I can go in under the surface and understand what's wrong, maybe even fix it on my own. As for security, IMHO it's all up to what protection you have. (If that ain't an invitation for double entendres...) I run one single protection program on all my machines, both at home and professionally, and I haven't had a breach since I got it. You have to pay, but people still seems to think that there is something like a free lunch, and wants to welch on security by expecting freeware to do the job. The most hillarious thing I know is people running Outlook etc on Macs going "but...but... I have a Mac! There's no viruses for Macs!"

[Jhereg]

Originally Posted by dragon wench

@Moonbiter,
lol! Yep you have me figured out. Graphics and gaming are not my first priority in a computer. On the other hand, I do like to buy a machine that has a lifespan of at least three years, if not more (my current computer is over 5 years old). So, I'm taking everything into account. This being the case, my preference is to buy something in the mid-upper-to-highend range.

If you're in the market for a new computer in the near future, I am a computer geek. No apologies for that. However, I have noticed a tendency among gamers to be 'heat seekers' - to go for the real heavy-hitters.

I do game to an extent, but I have found, for several years now, that if your PC is in the five-year-old range, you're probably looking at an upgrade. What you are probably looking for, however, unless you are a truly hard-core gamer, is something that was top-of-the-line perhaps 2 years ago. They can be had for cheap. They are immensely more powerful than the system you have, and will likely satisfy your requirements for the next five years at least.

For a upper-mid-to-high-end range computer's cost, you can buy a model that was that two years ago for 1/5th the price. At that kind of price scaling, you can afford to upgrade five times as often for the same price. If you only have to upgrade as often, then you save about 80% on the price tag overall. Can you spell "Vacation in Barbados?" I knew that you could.

Never live on the cutting edge. It's sharp. Sharp cuts back.