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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added a link to a tutorial for making a single image dvd of MCE
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.
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)
Does anyone know the origin of the name Boot Camp? How does it make any sense? -- Mikeazorin 14:58, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The product was called Xom. http://wiki.onmac.net/index.php/XOM_Main_Page has the solution. 76.118.238.99 15:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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? 72.43.143.92 20:09, 15 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)
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)
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)
Section would look brilliant as a table. It currently is an unencylopedic list. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 09:49, 3 July 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)
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?-- 67.84.12.248 21:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Can someone post operability with OSes that are in a different language? i.e. can this be used with French XP and French MacOS? -- geekyßroad . meow? 23:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move the page, per the discussion below. Edit the resulting redirect from Boot Camp as you wish. Dekimasu よ! 08:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Boot Camp → Boot Camp (software) to avoid confusion with boot camp
WP:PRECISION recommends "adding a parethical (bracketed) disambiguator to the page name: for instance when both spellings are often or easily confused." As noted above, this is a distinct possibility. — AjaxSmack 08:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Ubuntuforum: Bootcamp won't be downloadable any more
pctipp: apple_boot_camp_bricht_die_zelte_ab
Discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.214.145 ( talk) 11:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
"..., 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. 65.27.232.80 ( talk) 14:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
"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... 128.243.253.113 ( talk) 17:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought Boot Camp was available before 10.5, wasn't it? If so, this first line of the article should be more accurate. Comet Tuttle ( talk) 17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
If 2.2 is before 3.0, then on 3.0 why does it say August, when 2.2 says November, both of the same year? Because not everyone pays taxes. ( talk) 14:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
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. 199.212.118.188 ( talk) 18:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
Do you use it when you boot or when you camp? How do you you lounch it and eat it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.21.60.7 ( talk) 20:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
The final paragraph of the intro is hot garbage. It is perfectly sourced and worded. It's also so disingenuous as to be completely wrong. It is a lie of omission. It relies on statements from an Apple VP that Microsoft just needs to make it happen. This is wrong. Microsoft, like every OS vendor except Apple, licenses it's OS through an OEM arrangement. Apple is the OEM. They haven't made the arrangement. ARM boot requires a licensed BSP (board support package) and Apple isn't giving that away either. QEMU and Parallels running Windows isn't evidence either. They've reverse engineered a generic BSP, via virtualization, that Windows supports. That's not even close to why Windows doesn't run natively. Windows doesn't run on Apple ARM silicon for the same reason Android doesn't... because Apple chooses not to. This paragraph needs a serious rewrite. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) 00:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)