Talk:Boot Camp (software)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boot Camp (software) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Apple Inc.||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
- 1 Multi-Disk Support
- 2 Device Support
- 3 Not as prominent as real boot camp usage
- 4 Origin of the name
- 5 Tentative name
- 6 Is Boot Camp an emulator?
- 7 Before Boot Camp
- 8 Video Game compatibility list
- 9 File systems such as FAT32, NTFS, and HFS Plus
- 10 Windows Professional SP2 Student Edition?
- 11 Disloyal?
- 12 Not merely a convenience utility
- 13 Version History
- 14 S-video adapter
- 15 3 for 1?
- 16 different languages
- 17 Requested move
- 18 The End Of BootCamp
- 19 Geeks Reside Here
- 20 Weasel words
- 21 No Tap click support for notebooks?
- 22 Before 10.5
- 23 Concerning Apple Update For Windows 7
- 24 Confusion on the Timeline
- 25 Version 1.3 and 1.4 similarity?
- 26 wubi reference (in See Also) should be removed
- 27 Usage
- 28 Windows XP and Vista dropped.
- 29 Linux compatibility
- 30 Confusing remarks
I added a link to a tutorial for making a single image dvd of MCE
- as a note, the site seems to be down but if you wish to check the content then check google's cache. Mr. Telnet
I removed the ISight from the list of unsupported devices. Apple says it's now supported in 1.1. -DocVM
I removed the Apple Wireless Mouse and Keyboard from the list of unsupported devices. As of 1.1.2, they work fine. -Annon.
Not as prominent as real boot camp usage
Since this usage of Boot Camp was invented yesterday, April 5th, I don't think it should be the main page for boot camp. Instead, I think it should be on the disambig, and the military use should be the real page boot camp. LockeShocke 13:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree however IMHO, when the primary usage is a dictionary usage rather then an article usage, the secondary usage should take precident. I.e. in this case I think Boot Camp should remain as this Mac OS X feature. Nil Einne 16:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know anything more than what's on this article and Apple's page, but it sounds too similar to the running contest to get Windows XP to boot on Intel Macs. They missed the $12K prize by a hair. ;) I also agree that Boot Camp should change back to whatever it was. Maybe there's a way to decide by tracking article useage by linking to the disambig page instead. --CCFreak2K 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think what you are looking for is boot camp, not Boot Camp. AlistairMcMillan 18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Origin of the name
Does anyone know the origin of the name Boot Camp? How does it make any sense? --Mikeazorin 14:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Because you're booting Windows. Get it? ...Get it? Noclip 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I just added that Boot Camp is the tentative title of the software, because from http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ it says "Called Boot Camp (for now), you can download a public beta today." MrC 03:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Is Boot Camp an emulator?
Boot Camp does two things. It lets you non-destructively re-parition your hard drive and it burns a bunch of Windows drivers onto a CD. That is it. AlistairMcMillan 17:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It provides an Apple machine the ability to emulate a PC by providing *code* that allows it to do so. Hence, translation emulation, at least in my book. I agree the distinction between compatibility layers and translation emulation is sometimes slim, but in this case it overcomes BIOS incompatibility, significant hardware differences and everything. Translation emulation, in other words.
Oh, also, the main *point* of translation emulation is that an operating system has the capability of running *natively* on the same processor. Just because something *natively* can use the same processor doesn't mean every other bit of hardware is native; a good example is the Amiga running classic Macintosh software. Mattabat 10:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please take five minutes to read up on what Boot Camp actually does. Boot Camp only does TWO things. It re-partitions your hard drive and burns some drivers to a CD. It does not have ANYTHING to do with emulation. Mac OS X runs natively on Intel processors, there is NO emulation involved. AlistairMcMillan 18:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Mind if we make this debate public? I know some other people might disagree with your argument. Mattabat 06:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Since when has software that requires you to repartition your harddisk and use software burnt to CD to run another operating system not been emulation? Mattabat 06:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. You do understand that people who have an Intel-based Mac don't actually have to use Boot Camp to install Windows right? AlistairMcMillan 16:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Mattabat, Dude, The CD that has to be burned has NOTHING to do with running Windows. It is a Driver package that is needed for windows to interact with the Macintosh hardware. Why? Because Apple hardware is designed to run on a system running OS X. When I installed XP on my iMac, XP booted and ran on my hardware, but XP had dificulty interacting with my hardware properly until I had installed the drivers. Debate with me if you want. I'm talking about what I saw and did for myself. To call Boot Camp emulation, is nothing more than speculation. It's not emulation, because Apple isn't pretending to have a X86 processor. I does have an Intel inside. It's not pretending to have a Bios, It has an EFI that has enough things in common with a BIOS to boot Windows. Boot Camp is a Boot Loader.
- Also, here's the deal with the re-partition. WINDOWS CAN NOT EVEN SEE OR INTERACT WITH HFS, OS X RUNS ON HFS. Why would you want to put an OS onto a partition that it can't see or interact with? That's just asking for trouble. Plus, Why would you want to have Windows on the same Partition as OS X? That's just asking to have one OS screw up another OS. --Liquidmark 21:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- I can't help but think that a "boot loader" that allows an operating system to load that was *designed* not to work with it is for all practical purposes emulation. The architectural differences between the two machines are significant. Just because it's not as obtrusive as the average emulator application and doesn't operate as an application doesn't mean it isn't emulation. Just because a system doesn't pretend to not have the same processor doesn't mean it isn't emulation. There are examples of this, hence the Translation Emulation article. BTW, I am aware that some other emulators let you share filesystems (WinUAE for instance) and I agree the results are not always pretty - so what? Other emulators take advantage of partitions, e.g. Shapeshifter/Basilisk II.Mattabat 11:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's not emulation, because Windows is not running "on top of" other software. Windows runs on newer Apple hardware the exact same way that it would run on a Dell, Compaq, or HP. Yes, you need device drivers, but you would need them on a Dell too. Emulation is when you start one operating system first and then start the second one on top of it. That's not what we're doing here.Mobrienil 05:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry but I have to disagree with you on a number of points. Boot Camp is not a boot loader. The updated firmware that Apple released at the same time as Boot Camp includes the new boot loader that allows Windows to boot. Boot Camp just resizes your hard drive and puts drivers on a CD.
- (SIGH) I'm aware the Core Duo processors are X86 processors. I NEVER said that it was't, as I am using a Intel Mac while I write this. I only said that the software in question, isn't designed to help the Macintosh emulate anything. One of those anythings would be the X86 processor of which windows is coded to run on. PLEASE read my words more closely.
- I am completely aware of the firmware update. I installed the software myself, didn't I? But in my mind, both are part of the same package. Without the firmware update, there is no reason to download Boot Camp. Without Boot Camp, the user would have to whipe their hard drive and repartition it yourself. This causes the user to loose all of their old data, which is unappealing. The software doesn't resize anything. It repartitions (On the fly) part of your Hard Drive into a format that Windows can work in. Your hard drive is still the same size.
- Any other points you wish to disagree on? So far, I count one that has any credibility. --Liquidmark 01:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree mostly but I assume Boot Camp must resize your partitions since it seems rather unlikely that your existing Mac/HFS partitions would not fill up the hard drive completely (unless you purposely left space when install MacOSX I guess, if that's possible). Point being, I suspect Boot Camp does usually non destructively resize partitions, it couldn't work otherwise. NB, if you have have an existing partition that is 30gb and you change it to become 20gb, that's resizing a partition. There's no two ways about it.
- Of course, your HD is still the same size, if anyone actually thinks your HD can change size, they probably shouldn't be using a computer, let alone Boot Camp. I'm not quite sure however what the relevance of the fact Boot Camp resizes partitions has to do with anything. It doesn't affect whether it's an emulator (clearly it's not) or anything of that sort... Nil Einne 19:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
How many times does this need to be said. Boot Camp is not a boot loader. Boot loader, Boot Camp is not. Boot Camp != boot loader. Boot Camp does not load anything at boot. AlistairMcMillan 12:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Until we give up and say it is because you keep on repeating it? Mattabat 12:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- What else does Boot Camp do, other than re-partition your hard drive and burn some drivers to CD? —184.108.40.206 18:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Look at this page. http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ What is the second item on the "What you'll need" list? Firmware update. That is the bootloader that lets you boot Windows. Boot Camp is just a regular Macintosh application. AlistairMcMillan 12:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Or this page. http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/windows_the_new_classic Look for the word "firmware". AlistairMcMillan 12:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Or this page. http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/4/8/3524 Again look for the word "firmware". AlistairMcMillan 12:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- I guess it comes down to whether you count the bits that apple released to support bootcamp (the firmware upgrade and the introduction of resizevolume to diskutil) as being part of bootcamp or not. While apple advertised bootcamp as thier soloution for running windows on a mac it was those bits realeased alongside it that really made it possible to boot a non hacked up windows on a mac. Boot camp itself just provided a GUI and some windows drivers. Plugwash 21:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Before Boot Camp
Can anyone tell me what was the name of the website trying to solve the doal-booting problem and whatever happened to it since Boot Camp was released? Dami 15:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Video Game compatibility list
I'm not sure if it would be appropriate for a list of video games that can be run with boot camp on all the different models of intel based macs on Wikipedia. But that would be a really great addition to this article.
- Well, since you're doing nothing more or less than using Windows on your computer, I'd have to say that all games work, just as long as your Mac meets the system requirements, of course. Windows is running natively on your Mac, so there's no reason why any game shouldn't work. —OneofThem(talk)(contribs) 03:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
File systems such as FAT32, NTFS, and HFS Plus
Could someone add some info about Boot Camp's support (or lack of) for FAT32, NTFS, and HFS Plus? I believe that both OS X and Windows can read/write from FAT32 partitions; OS X can't write to NTFS but Windows can; and Windows may/may not be able to read/write to HFS Plus but OS X can. More info on this would be greatly appreciated. --Eptin 05:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you just count built in support then your conclusion on filesystem support is correct. What is even more of a PITA is things only seem to work if you reformat the windows partition during windows setup which makes it a major PITA to install windows on a mac on a fat32 partition greater than 32GB. There are third party soloutions out there for NTFS on OS-X but when I tried I couldn't get them to work properly. I think there are HFS+ soloutions for windows availible but I believe they are payware. Plugwash 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Windows Professional SP2 Student Edition?
Does anyone have more information on this? Such as a source for the software itself (preferrably from Microsoft)? There are no sources cited for this statement, and after searching through Google (as well as Microsoft.com) I have found nothing to back this up, aside from multiple torrent files claiming to be a "student edition". Belmore 22:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed - this is rubbish. What the user is probably referring to is a VLK edition of Windows XP that he got from his university, in which case it would just be Windows XP Home or Professional. There is no special student edition. --Mr. Brown 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The academic license versions (as they're actually called) of XP are typically XP Professional using a VLK which needs no activation. So yes, what the original poster had in the article was unnecessary. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand it. Since 1984, Macintosh users have been going on about how superior the Mac OS is over the supposedly junky, inferior, glitchy, crashing Windows. I've known many Macintosh users who swore they'd never, ever touch Windows. However, now that Macintosh computers can run Windows, everyone who uses a Mac is super-excited to install Windows on their Mac. Does that make any sense, especially based on the last 23 years of Mac loyalty? 220.127.116.11 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Some of us are pragmatists, not zealots. Most sensible people would agree the ability to run multiple operating systems is a good thing, whether some users choose to or not. Jshiell 10:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I understand that and you're right, but I'm pointing out the faulty logic that many Mac fanatics have used for the past several years. Remember the "Think different" and "It just works" campaigns? How about the current "Mac vs. PC" campaign? Apple has tried to make Windows look like a difficult, glitchy, stupid piece of junk for years, but the truth is that now Mac users are buying Windows. Way to go, Apple. 18.104.22.168 14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll give me take on this. It's been said and should be said again, Apple wants to sell hardware. OS X has never been a major revenue generator for them. By allowing people that have only used Windows their entire lives to have the option to buy a Mac now versus a Dell increases Mac sales, which keeps revenues up and keeps the stockholders happy due to increased market share and hardware sales. The idea is, those who no nothing but Windows will at some point use OS X on their new Mac's and may fall in love with it, therefore creating yet another dedicated OS X user. Case in point: I was able to switch someone simply by owning a MacBook. He used my old PowerBook and wasn't quite thrilled. He said OS X was crap and just liked Windows better. However when I showed him my new MacBook and how it boot both Windows and OS X he went out and bought one a week after he used my Mac for the day. He said the ability to boot Windows was a strong reason for his purchase. However, every time I see him using his Mac he's in OS X! I think it's a solid strategy overall, and I wouldn't want it any other way. Games are simply written for Windows, and I am so happy that I can use both Windows and OS X on my computer for the reasons of gaming. Simply put, if you don't like Windows, don't install it. As long as OS X is tied to Apple hardware the strategy is golden and it's still a better OS. I only use Windows for games, which is not very often. And my friend, and old Windows junky who bought a Mac because it could boot windows rarely ever uses it now. So obviously there's still 'something' about OS X over Windows. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I use Mac OS X 10.4 for 35 hours a week at work and it's decent, but it's too cartoony looking for me and it doesn't give me enough customization options. What if I don't want cartoony, jelly-like scroll bars or buttons? Too bad, I'm stuck with them. In Windows XP and Vista, which I have at home, I can customize everything to look and act the way I want it to. Also, on the two Mac G5 computers I have at work, the programs crash. It's rare, but it happens. I used to have problems with Windows 95 and Windows 98, but with XP and Vista, I haven't really had any crashes, and I push my home computers the hardest. Finally, what's with Apple charging over $100 for minor updates to OS X (10.2, 10.3, 10.4, etc.)? Microsoft lets users download and install Windows updates for free. 22.214.171.124 22:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That's nice. How is this relevant to Boot Camp or anything being discussed on this talk page? As a side note, Windows Vista Ultimate costs $400 per license and many consider Windows XP SP3. In fact, you can take a Windows XP installation and install IE 7, WMP 11, Windows Defender, Google Calendar and Picasa, and something called Vista transformation pack which will give you the "Wow" of Vista for free. Criticise OS X all you wish, but attempting to do so in terms of its pricing when compared to Windows is asisine. Again, I use both OS X and Windows, but Windows is only for gaming - plain and simple, however Vista broke gaming in Windows, albeit temporarily. Oh and OS X gets many updates for free; how else can you explain starting at 10.4.0 and working your way up to 10.4.9? Finally, it was Windows XP which was referred to the Nickelodeon OS by reviewers when it came out -- not OS X. Go figure. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Not merely a convenience utility
Would anyone like to add to the page the fact that you really must use it? I thought I'd outsmart Apple and merely partition my hard disk manually using Disk Utility. However I hadn't made a driver disk so I ran the Boot Camp installer package expecting to be able to skip the partitioning section. Not allowed. The software checks the partition map and doesn't like more than one big HFS partition there. So I had to reformat and start again. Connectionfailure 01:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, you can install Windows without Boot Camp. I just installed Windows on my Macbook using VMWare Fusion this weekend. From what I understand it's equally easy to install it with Parallels. --Chuck SMITH 07:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- You can use diskutil to do the paritioning and I belive there is a way to extract the driver image from the bootcamp package without using the bootcamp wizard. Plugwash 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you can extract the driver image very easily from Boot Camp. Just right click the Boot Camp application, click show package contents, then navigate to Contents then Resources, and in that folder there should be a disk image file with Boot Camp drivers. Frederik Holden (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- You can use diskutil to do the paritioning and I belive there is a way to extract the driver image from the bootcamp package without using the bootcamp wizard. Plugwash 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I am putting the text on the unsupported Apple s-video adapter back on the page. I am doing this because ever since Apple removed the s-video plug from the Powerbooks, this device has been the only official way (next to third-party scanconverters) of getting a tv signal out of a mac laptop or mac mini, and should therefor be considered an integral part of these devices. There are some sites (especially in the video art world) which write about this shortcoming, I am not sure to quote them on the page, but here are some links:
--Eelke 22:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
3 for 1?
Boot camp can run Windows XP, Vista, and people were able to run Ubuntu Linux on it. But here's a question. can it run all 3 on the same computer?--126.96.36.199 21:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- You can set up a tripple boot but it is a bit of a pain. You have to use diskutil resizevolume to do the paritioning and the third party rEFIt bootloader. Plugwash 22:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The End Of BootCamp
- Apple released a new version of OS-X with bootcamp included so it made sense that they stopped availibility of the beta. Plugwash 10:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Geeks Reside Here
"..., and some discussion groups on the web question Apple's commitment to updating its drivers in a timely way." According to project guidelines, if you cannot make a clear statement - i.e. "..., because Apple is /not/ commited to updating its drivers in a timely way." - with a proper citation, then no statement should be made. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
No Tap click support for notebooks?
"As of Version 2.1 there is no support for tap click on Mac notebooks" - What does this mean, exactly? That you can't tap the trackpad to emulate a mouse click? 'Cause it seems to work fine for me with 2.1... 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'd consider removing it if no source provided as that sounds incorrect to me as well. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Boot Camp is a utility included with Apple Inc.'s Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard" and v10.6 "Snow Leopard" operating systems
- It was a beta for 10.4 I believe. But it wasn't "officially" released, necessarily. --Thekmc (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Concerning Apple Update For Windows 7
On the Windows 7 section @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Camp_(software)#Windows_7, there is a cited part stating that: "Apple has announced that it will officially support Windows 7 in an upcoming version of Boot Camp that is to be released before the end of 2009". However, today is the second last day of the year, and I don't think they're gonna make it. How should we edit the article so it is up-to-date? Because not everyone pays taxes. (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Confusion on the Timeline
Version 1.3 and 1.4 similarity?
Were the updates in version 1.4 actually almost identical to those in 1.3 (other than the localization and slight rewording)? There is no source sited for the version history, and from what I've seen here http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/29549&vid=443953&mode=info it seems like this needs some fixing. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
wubi reference (in See Also) should be removed
Boot Camp is in no way similar to the method used by wubi to install Linux from within Windows. Wubi creates a file inside the Windows filesystem that the Linux system boots from. Boot Camp actually partitions the drive and installs Windows natively on that partition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedragon1971 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please only make comments if they are constructive. Talk pages are used to discuss the actual article and its quality, not to make unnecessary comments. --Thekmc (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Windows XP and Vista dropped.
I read that a recent version of Boot Camp dropped support for installing Windows XP and Vista (however, previously created partitions with XP and Vista were still supported). Anybody have a source on this or know if it's true? DanielDPeterson (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- It appears that it has been dropped with the latest macbook pro and air, as seen on this page: macslice.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekmc (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
In the "Other Operating Systems" section, it says boot camp can be used to boot linux. However: A) The source for that is a forum, which is hardly a reliable source (or am I wrong?), and B) On the forum, all it says is that you can make a partition in boot camp setup that linux can use. That same thing can be done by disk utility, so linux booting isn't really happening as a result of boot camp. I think we need to remove the reference to linux booting entirely. Any thoughts? --Thekmc (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Eh - technically it's still using the utility. It's definitely not a reliable source though. I've removed the tidbit from the first sentence in the lead along with the subsection, but mentioned it briefly at the end of the lead with some context. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Amusingly, "boot camp" doesn't actually boot anything; it's a file system move/resize tool which facilitates the ROM/BIOS systems existing capability to select boot partitions. It happens to contain code that lets you download some windows drivers to an external USB along the way, but that doesn't mean you *must* install windows into the new partition you made - stick linux there if you want. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
"Officially Boot Camp does not work on Mac OS X Lion and later releases if more than three primary OS X partitions exist on the target hard drive. Since on Mac OS X Lion, the Mac operating system itself consumes three partitions (EFI, Mac OS X, and Recovery), effectively there can only be one partition other than Boot Camp. Thus, for example, it is not officially possible to create a data partition." This doesn't make any sense at all: a) only 3 partitions allowed b) all 3 are used up c) + boot camp and one other partition (=5!) c) not data partition (=4?) Chris2crawford (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)