Metropol

Apple have today officially released a new program called Boot Camp, that allows users of the new Intel based Macs to install
and run Windows XP as a dual boot with Mac OS X ... and without the need to totally reformat the HDD containing Mac OS X.

Official Apple Boot Camp screengrabs - Source: Apple.com



It's a fairly hefty 83MB download, and also a "public beta", so it's a case of "proceed with caution" and backup everything on
the HDD you consider to be important, before attempting to run the thing. And unlike the recent unofficial hacks that allow
you to run Windows XP natively on MacIntel systems, Apple have set this thing up so that it installs drivers that enables
the Windows XP operating system to work with the Apple Mac specific (proprietary) hardware inside the computer.

Boot Camp is a working title for this program, and Apple may change the name at some point. Apple have even announced
that this program will also be available as an integral part of the next major release version of Mac OS X (10.5 - Leopard).

So ... it's all the more reason to get a Mac as your next new computer, and less reason to buy a bog standard generic PC.

And this a win-win situation for both Apple and Microsoft. Steve Jobs' Mob get to shift more Apple Macintosh computers,
particularly to those mulling over whether to buy an Apple Mac or a PC. And the Redmond Gang can flog more copies
of Windows XP to users of the new Intel based Macs, as well as their usual PC owning customers.

OSnews- Apple Boot Camp Beta: Dual Boot Your Intel Mac Right Now!
The Inquirer - Apple lets you run Windows XP on Macinteltosh
BBC News Online - Apple makes Macs run Windows XP
BetaNews - Apple Software Adds Windows to Mac
The Register - Apple blesses Windows XP on Macs

i wonder whether this will actually damage apple.

although osx is often considered to be apples crown jewels i wonder how many software vendors will continue to port applications from windows to mac when they know you now can run windows on a mac *offically* anyway?

for instance, adobe isn't upgrading it's photoshop suite to the univeral binary format for a while (at present powerpc compiled applications run through an emulation layer on the intel build of mac osx)

now to me, adobe and those types of applications are the reason why people buy macs, so if adobe isn't too concerned about a sizable chunk of its userbase not getting a native build of its software you've got to wonder just how long it will be before macs run a special build version of windows with a customised shell or whatever...

that would be much easier for developers of hardware and software and network administrators.

i put my money on the fact that within the next 5 years we'll see the begining of the end for the mac os.

I'd prefer to be able to run OSX on a normal PC.

Hymagumba wrote: I'd prefer to be able to run OSX on a normal PC.

While Steve Jobs is still Apple CEO, that will never (legally) happen. At all. Ever. Full stop.

I take it I can bittorrent something down and run it on VMware though?

It's probably technically possible (I haven't tried it myself) but definitely not legally possible.

FWIW . . .

Antony Shen ... SillyDog701 Message Centre, site admin wrote: Apple has hidden a poem inside OS X that warns users not to pirate the operating system,
according to OSx86 Project. The Web site noted on Tuesday: "a few pieces of OS X
look for a secret message in 'commpage' that gets decrypted via the TPM ...
basically a decoder ring for geeks. " The poem reads:

Your karma check for today:
There once was a user that whined
his existing OS was so blind,
he'd do better to pirate
an OS that ran great
but found his hardware declined.
Please don't steal Mac OS!
Really, that's way uncool.
(C) Apple Computer, Inc.

Source of the above quote ... http://sillydog.org/forum/sdt_10703.php

i'm not sure if it would really be illegal to make it run on pc hardware... just because a licence agreement asserts that it is illegal doesn't make it so.

and in anycase, it's bound to happen anyway and there isn't really anything anybody could do to stop it.

it if was so important to apple that their os can't run on a standard pc they would have made sure that their hardware so significantly different so it wasn't possible (or really worth anybodies while) to get it working.

So is all this actually implying that Mr Jaron Brass will soon be running Windows XP?

Dr Lobster* wrote:
i put my money on the fact that within the next 5 years we'll see the begining of the end for the mac os.

No! Don't say that!

Seriously though, Apple are onto a winner with OS X, and they know it. Plus, most people who buy Macs do so because they DON'T want Windows anymore. We'll not see the end of the Mac OS, as if MS wanted to ship Windows with new Macs, they'd be toasted for 'abusing their monopoly'

i'm not sure if it would really be illegal to make it run on pc hardware... just
because a licence agreement asserts that it is illegal doesn't make it so.

According to Section 2, Paragraphs A and C of Apple Computer Inc. Software License Agreement for Mac OS X . . .

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.

A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of
the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

C. Except as and only to the extent permitted in this License and by applicable law,
you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create
derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof.

As I'm sure you're aware, a software license agreement, or end user license agreement IS a legally binding contract.
And since an official Intel compatible version of Mac OS X needs to be reverse engineered in some way to make it
work on a generic, non-Apple branded x86 computer, you would need to breach the terms of the agreement
in order for it to work. In short, installing and running Mac OS X on an ordinary PC is illegal.

Dr Lobster wrote: it if was so important to apple that their os can't run on a standard pc they would have made sure that their
hardware so significantly different so it wasn't possible (or really worth anybodies while) to get it working.

That's as maybe. But seeing as Apple have only got a very small share (about 5%) of the market in personal computers,
if they'd ever created a publically available version of Mac OS X, licensed to run on generic x86 based hardware, that
would effectively spell the end of Apple as a computer hardware manufacturer.

If, on the other hand, Apple, and the current market leader in PC hardware, which I believe is Dell (spit!) both had a
near equal share of the market in personal computer, only then would Apple be more likely to risk making Mac OS
available on bog standard x86 harware, as well as their own Macintosh range of personal computers.

Having said that, ever since Mac OS X first became available nearly five years ago, before even the first iPods came out,
they've been developing x86 compatible builds of the OS, "just in case" they were to ever decide to make the switch
from Motorola/Freescale and IBM's PowerPC architectures to the x86 hardware used in generic PC boxes.

DJGM wrote: As I'm sure you're aware, a software license agreement, or end user license agreement IS a legally binding contract.

not so. just because a license agreement says that you "can't" do something with their software doesn't actually make doing it illegal. sure, you might break the agreement, but that doesn't make it illegal

for example, i could put a clause in one of my own software license agreements which stated that it could not be installed on a pc which isn't in a black case. would installing it on a pc with a beige case be breaking the law? no. it's the same thing.

indeed, several courts in the united states (software license agreements haven't really been tested here in the uk) have found that certain terms within license agreements to be invalid. not only that, but some territories have completely different laws with regards to shrink wrapped license agreements. i recall reading that in at least one country they are not enforceable at all because the user doesn't have a chance to see the agreement before make the purchase.

it is probably technically possible to actually install or extract the files from the osx cd without actually clicking "i agree" therefore not actually agreeing to the license agreement (and therefore not actually breaking it)

btw, in 1997 a legal case of Beta Computers v Adobe it was determined that the EULA was part of the contract between the retailer and the end user, not the software vendor.

and anyway, could i not slap an apple sticker on my pc? it doesn't say i *can't*...

This License allows you to install and use one copy of
the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

doesn't say apple manufactured, it says apple labeled. i can just stick an apple label on it and i've not even broken the unenforcable license agreement.

as long as i have enough licenses for the number of computers i've got it installed on, i fail to see how that is breaking the exact terms of their license agreement.