digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Apple Boot Camp Beta Expires With Leopard -- Mac OS X

informationweek.com — Tiger Users Left Out In The Cold

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • accidental, on 10/13/2007, -20/+86Is there a need for it when Leopard has it built in? Who isn't going to upgrade to Leopard??
    • streak, on 10/10/2007, -32/+4When is who going to upgrade to Leopard?
    • GCarden, on 10/26/2007, -16/+59*GASP!* Shockingly enough, some people still run the OS that came with their system!
      • NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -6/+25That OS didn't come with Boot Camp, and Apple never promised that Boot Camp would be available for Tiger indefinitely.

        -jcr
        • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6Why does Apple couple applications into these point releases and charge $130 for them? Shouldnt system utilities like this be free?
        • tuartboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8It would be nice if Apple gave me every update for free, but they have no obligation to you or their shareholders to do so.
        • potp, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5And people bitch about MS. Atlest MS kept adding feature to to windows XP with SP2 and is still working on SP3. Why is apple allowed to get away with this kind of *****.
        • turpenine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I bet it will just go final when leopard is released, since it is integrated into leopard, why would they sell people something with built in beta software? wake up numbnuts.
        • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2actually apple said that Boot Camp would expire around the time leopard came out.

          You dont have a right to be surprised!
      • knightboat, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Why are you gasping?
      • Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Not only that, Windows will still operate just fine without boot camp. This is a mountain being made out of a mole hill.
        • threemagic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This is true.. and about 1 billion boot managers will come out of the woodwork!!! Partition managers already exist.

          Drivers for windows may be a little harder to find but I'll bet money you'll be able to get them from somewhere
      • cave, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8If they care about boot camp, they obviously aren't very attached to the OS that came with the system.
        • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3or maybe they are required to run windows (for work or something) and they need native speeds, or dont want to pay another $70 to buy parallels!
      • cearum, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1If anyone is still silly enough to use the OS that came with their system. Then they probably don't have a use for Boot Camp. Also, most people actually using Boot Camp will be way to excited about Leopard that they will upgrade anyways.
    • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -13/+38"Who isn't going to upgrade to Leopard??"
      Anyone who's using it in a production environment, where downtime simply cannot happen because of lost revenue -- be it because some of the remaining bugs are more severe then Apple thought, or because crucial software isn't quite compatible and needds to be rewritten.
      They may go there eventually, when it has proven itself to be stable, but it will need a couple of months at least to do so.
      • schmeeky, on 10/10/2007, -5/+47So why would they be using boot camp?
        • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -13/+9Who knows? Cross-platform testing and development? I guess some things are better tested "natively", rather than through virtualisation...
          The point I was making was simply that there are quite a few environments where something as crucial as the OS doesn't get upgraded the minute it's available at the store -- heck, many companies are reticent to even allow standard run-of-the-mill, day-to-day upgrades without a careful screening of what happens.
          • Nossie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14I hate to tell you sunshine but Bootcamp is as much a beta as leopard is... why are you so willing to use one and not the other?

            Apple used bootcamp to entice people over from the windows platform, they always stated it would be a beta and that you shouldn't use it if you expected the software to work 24/7

            Bootcamp is a beta environment
            Leopard is a beta environment

            NEITHER of which should be used in a production environment.

            Dont get me wrong, I realise why Apple is doing this and its to make more money. There is not a fantastic reason to suddenly upgrade to leopard (more so than vista admittedly) so apple has to give you one.

            Apple has used bootcamp as a carrot and leopard as the stick. The reason Apple released it early is because I think ... people had just about got Windows running on their intel mac without it anyway (its not rocket science for christ sake) I think Bootcamp has been final for a while now and apple just didnt want to make it so ... so they could force people onto leopard.

            Anyone thats n
          • Nossie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7oh this stupid comment system!

            And for some reason firefox double spaces every carriage return I make on digg till I edit and remove them all.. and my edit time expired before I could correct and finish that

            I pay for software because I want to support the developers... not because of some draconian law that says I have to. I would have probably bought leopard.. dont get me wrong, I'll get it either way.... but how do I feel now that Apple is using more and more 'Microsoft' tactics to 'encourage' people to pay for every update.... to 'encourage' people to use itunes with their iPods...

            I dont think I'm the only person that feels this way.

            And then my 'session has expired, please refresh the page before commenting'' GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Digg fix this *****! :P hehe
          • goblindegook, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Tippis: if it's used for "testing and development" then it's not a production environment, is it?
        • r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I think the point being made that the people who are sticking with Tiger in a production, aren't going to be running the Boot Camp BETA for the exact reason they won't instantly upgrade to Leopard.
        • michaelb1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1all I know is I will be getting leopard to get boot-camp. I need to run autocad a lot this semester.
          VMWare Fusion is a dog. It runs so slow on my Macbook that it is practically unusable.
          Also, there is no simple way to delete the partition when you decide to uninstall it and delete your virtual machine. I have a 20gig unused partition just sitting there.
          Finally I backed up and wiped the whole machine.
      • MateyO, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14What kind of production environment doesn't account for maintenance? Your critical production services aren't fault-tolerant?
      • fjc8, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Boot Camp has been in beta. Anyone who cares about having stable software in a production environment should probably just get two computers.
        • threemagic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2or VM
          • michaelb1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3sucks.
          • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually parallels works great for running IE to test websites in!

            If I had to reboot my computer everytime I needed to test something in IE, I would probably invest in a $200 PC!
          • trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1FYI IE4Linux works with OS X as well, though it is harder to setup.
      • LeonardNimrod, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6No big deal. The Boot Camp download, partition and drivers will still function the same as they did before Leopard's release.

        If for some reason one needs to get a copy of BootCamp for Tiger then it will surely be available from a vast amount of internet sources.

        I really do hate these sensationalist headlines on Digg!
        • fyngyrz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Really no big deal, because Parallels is a lot better than boot camp unless you are playing games and need direct hardware support for 3d. Why boot to Windows when you can run Windows, Linux and OS X side by side, concurrently. Meets my needs 100%.
          • michaelb1, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2because it's slower. I used parallels and VMware Fusion for awhile. Neither were as fast as bootcamp when I run autocad.
            I guess becuase the MacOS is running at the same time as XP. The each share the system resources at the same time.

            Maybe if I had a powermac loaded with Ram but bootcamp runs xp faster on my macbook.
          • msgyrd, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Battery life. Running a VM eats battery faster than just running Windows natively.
        • cearum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Exactly.
    • neiltc13, on 10/10/2007, -29/+25My University uses Boot Camp on about 20 Macs and I don't think they'll be upgrading to Leopard. Will be interesting to see what happens.

      As for Leopard itself, it's the most pointless update Apple have ever released. It's even less worthwhile than Windows Vista (which in my opinion is a great product) if you had Windows XP. There are practically no features in Leopard which I want to use at all and everything they have added seems to be just for the hell of it because they have run out of ideas.
      • MateyO, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14Having run the beta releases for awhile $129 for automatic backup is a pretty compelling feature. I'll take cheap upgrades that add value to existing hardware over Vista. And I've spent a LOT of time on Vista.
        • uptown, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4You do realize there are a ton of good free automated backup solutions out there, don't you?
          • michaelb1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3No there's not. Apple makes the worlds only good back-up program.
          • Lithpiperpilot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2mmmmm. Fanboys
          • bjeanes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@ michaelb1,
            you've GOT to be kidding, right? I consider myself an apply fanboy but Time Machine is a piece of *****. You evidently haven't used it or are just a sucker for the legendary apple RDF. If you are backing up any reasonably LARGE file, any change to that file backs up a NEW copy, eating away your backup space. Maybe it was a good idea when they were milling over the idea of using ZFS, which they evidently did not do (unless there are still more Leopard surprises, which there won't be). Also the interface is pure eyecandy. It's pathetic.
            Third party and FREE backup solutions let you choose how to do the backups, how often, where, what format, how to handle duplicates, increntals and a million other options. Time Machine has on and off and which drive to use. I am surprised they even have exceptions to let you not backup particular locations. That saved my hard drive from backing up a new copy of my itunes library file (~40MB) each time i played a song and it incremented the playcount.
            Again, pathetic (and this is coming from someone who has been running leopard AND time machine since the first seed and still is).
      • DMXell, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19Have you been researching leopard? Integrated VNC, better home networking, Time Machine, a new UI (to some degree, mainly in the side panel), enhanced versions of all the current products in OS X (can't wait to see what Automator has new in it), etc. There are over 150 additions to OS X Leopard that simply haven't been made in press releases by Apple since, let's face it, no one wants to hear Steve Jobs mention every single update (including the small ones). He's a good speaker but that's just too much.
        • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Apple makes improvements to applications and sells y ou a $130 update? What would this forum think if MS started charging for Live Messenger? Or Remote Desktop Client? Or the ZeroConf client? Or Complete PC?
          • Nossie, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5*sigh* your one of those people that cant seem to comprehend....

            Each big cat release is a rework of OSX in the same way that every new re-brand of Windows is a rework of NT. The 'point' releases such as 10.4.>8< and the 10.4.>10< are just like the free service packs you get for Windows.

            Apple is admittedly more subtle in its OS implementations but then so is their pricing. Atleast your not paying $400 for Vista Ultimate to get texas hold em, dreamscene and a pretty skirt.

            Atleast research what you think you know before spouting *****. Apple does charge for Apple remote Desktop (although you get Windows RDC 'free' with Office 2k4) ARD is a far better program all round than RDC ever could be but why dont you compare the two and see why?

            http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/
        • devindotcom, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Sorry dude, but you've obviously drunk the kool-aid. The changes in Leopard are minimal. No one wants time machine, the UI is insignificant, "better home networking?" You're reaching. And every time some one drops the "150 additions" or more, I stop listening because almost all of them are so incredibly minor as to be incremental updates to applications, or bugfixes.
          • nato64, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I am currently using Time Machine on Leopard 9A559. It's bloody awesome. I thought it was kind of pointless and eye candy. But it's kind of... fun. I know that sounds weird but Time Machine, Spaces, Unified UI, iCal, and all the other upgrades are more than worth it. It's the biggest upgrade to Mac OS X yet. I hate to say this, but it's kind of like how Vista was a complete overhaul of XP. Except Leopard doesn't have to try to polish the turd that is Windows.
      • nycmac247, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1"My University..."
        -- portable / mobile homes version 2 and you are not upgrading?
        • threemagic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It's not about features, usually it's about money
      • yabos, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9QuickLook is a compelling feature especially for files like word or power point because they are not native yet and take a while to load even on a fast Intel based machine. Having QuickLook you can just hit the space bar and the preview comes right up much faster than launching and waiting for word or powerpoint.
      • judgeFire, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Quick Look is the best Mac OS feature ever. Space Bar, Boom! :)
        • nato64, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I LOVE Quick Look. It's so much fun it's ridiculous. I'm using 9A559 right now and loving it.
      • nomore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14As an Cocoa developer who's been using Leopard for a while now... I have two words which destroy your argument: Core Animation

        If you don't understand the far reaching implications of this, then do some research.

        Other very good features I like:
        Spaces
        Time Machine
        New Cocoa Finder
        Automator's "watch me do" feature
        Webclip
        Quicklook
        iChat Theatre
        • devindotcom, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4spaces - already have perfectly good 3rd client apps for this
          time machine - boo, everyone knows it
          new ui - who cares? I don't see any actual changes, they're aesthetic
          automator - that's good. but it should have been released functional, not broken and waiting to be fixed in an expensive update
          Webclip and quicklook sound... possibly slightly useful but pretty weak really
          ichat theatre - meh

          These things are useless, minor, and should be free. Apple is squeezing money out of people.
          And as for core animation, sure it's useful for developers.... if they want to make something like Disco. I personally always turn off visual effects of any kind.
          edit: and it seems to have double spaced my comment. sorry. And then it fixed it when I added THAT comment.
          • nomore, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5I'm sorry, but Core Animation is of far more use than just visual effects.

            It seems that your opinion is based on screenshots and blogs rather than actual use.
          • Protoss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4How was Automator broken? I use it to scan my music directory and add those files to iTunes, works perfectly in Tiger.
      • michaelb1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'm really looking forward to Leopards .Mac functionality. I can't wait to be able to drag a doc to a folder on my macbook from school and it goes to my iMac at home.
        That feature alone is going to change my workflow.
        I know I could do this via other 3rd party means but there is something to be said for simple OS embedded drag and drop ftp service.
    • Elranzer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Isn't Boot Camp just one of many ways to install Windows XP/Vista natively on an Intel Mac? I always thought it was merely a partitioner packed with a driver CD. The EFI update (that allows BIOS emulation) is really what allows Windows to be installed, and is independent of OS X.

      Is installing Leopard going to somehow wipe out any Windows partitions and prevent the EFI from allowing it to install? Otherwise, I don't think this is an issue.
      • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It would be the other way around -- *not* installing Leopard would mean your partition and EFI update got nuked...

        ...but they've only said that the *support* for BootCamp beta ends, so that's probably not going to happen, no.
      • schmeeky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Elranzer is right - this will only affect Tiger users who haven't already partitioned their drive (using boot camp or otherwise). It won't stop you booting from an existing windows installation.
      • yabos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The only thing that will happen is you won't be able to start Bootcamp Assistant any more although you can probably set your clock back to last year and it might work anyways. What that means is you can't change anything about your partitions using it. So if you have everything set up the way you like it then it's fine but if not then you will be screwed unless you get Leopard or the setting the date back works.

        Apple has said from the beginning that only Leopard will have the final version of BootCamp so no one should be surprised about this.
      • Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Dugg down for sound logic. Classic digg.
    • jayhawk, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10about 99% of schools are not going to upgrade until the school year is over.
      • TejInLA, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4yes, but your bootcamp partition doesn't expire, just the utility in osx that allows you to set one up.
    • griz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9A lot of people will not update to Leopard. Frankly, Tiger is an incredibly stable and well tested environment.
      • skidooer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I disagree. While the feature list in Leopard isn't all that compelling on it's own, there will be a lot of third-party software that is available for Leopard only, and that will be enough to push people into upgrading.
    • hadak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I won't be upgrading to Leopard...yet. I still have a G3. On top of that, if you recall, Tiger wasn't worth a damn for several months.
    • mossblaser, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2Why would I expend 100 dollars on leopard just so i can run firmware updates? Seriously - I run linux on my mac cos really mac os is wayy to restrictive for my liking and thats all I ever use mac OS for.
      • CATSCEO, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3This isn't a firmware update.
        • mossblaser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I am meaning I use mac os for firmware updates and thats all, I wouldnt get leopard just for the privilege of installing updates with a transparent task bar...
    • jasz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5heck, I'm trying to get away from windows.... no need for bootcamp.. plus... Tiger works just fine for me.. .maybe I'll upgrade later...
    • posure, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6I'm not paying over a hundred bucks for a gimped update that doesn't gain me much of anything (especially when I'm used to getting such updates for free in Windows).
      • skidooer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8What do you mean? Tiger updates are free. We've had ten of them thus far.
      • michaelb1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1ahh but will you upgrade to Leopard?
      • nato64, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Because Vista was free? What the heck are you on?
    • gerrymac, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Umm.. how about those thousands of people who don't have $200 lying around of a OS with pretty much nothing new to offer, (other then boot camp.)
      • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6this is MAC Osx we're talking about here. Mac users are rich, all of them. Some are obscenely rich. Others just overly wealthy. BUT, they all have wads of cash and blank cheques that they fling at Apple at the slightest whiff of a new product. Can't afford it, indeed.... pah. ;)
      • craig4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't see the need to over exaggerate the price, its 129.99 for single user. Most of the early iPhone adopters will most likely be using their store credit on Leopard.
        • gerrymac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1ahh, but i am Australian, $199. and we don't have iPhone store credit, because we don't have the iPhone. Anyhow, like a lot of mac users, i wont upgrade my OS, until i upgrade my mac.
    • Throlkim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I have no reason to update. Especially as I can't actually see anything particularly outstanding about it.
  • sputnikv, on 10/10/2007, -21/+11***** jack thomas, when leopard comes out, i'm gonna proclaim my masculinity by throwing a chair out a window
  • bullsfan03, on 10/10/2007, -22/+14***** that... whats the point apple!? I dont want to buy an upgrade so i can keep my boot camp going...
    • xXMetalJesusXx, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18Then don't take part in Beta's...problem solved.
      This isn't news people, it was released a LONG time ago by Apple.
    • DagMX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Only bootcamp assistant will stop working. Any bootcamp installations will still work.

      Basically if you can find a copy of the driver disk and a way to partition the drive, your good to go even once the beta expired
  • vault, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25I would still like a Leopard release date!

    "end of October"
  • ncaauwe, on 10/13/2007, -2/+96Wait...so it's not going to just stop working the day Leopard comes out, right? The article states that we'll just lose support. Hell, I didn't even know Boot Camp WAS supported. You know, since it's in beta...
    • bjtitus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Very True. I doubt they would force Tiger users to upgrade since they have a fairly good history of backwards compatibility.
    • godzillaWax, on 10/10/2007, -14/+21Fairly good history of backwards compatibility? You're talking about Apple, right? The company that ditches support for products on flights of whimsy? The company that will make older software obsolete unless you agree to upgrade? Apple has a loooong history of abandoning support for products if they think they can wring more money from you.
      • natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -9/+11You've pretty much described every company out there.
        • netdroid9, on 10/10/2007, -6/+17...Err, no, he hasn't. Case in point: Microsoft. They continued to allow production of games for the Xbox after the release of the 360 (although admittedly most of these were backports; they're promising to release a software update for the 1st generation Zune that gives it the software features of the new Zunes; they release converter packs for old office versions to allow them to open documents made in new editions of the software; Windows 98 was updated until a couple of years ago and Windows 2000 still gets security updates; and Windows Vista x86 can still run applications from the Win16 era.

          Most companies, especially Microsoft (see WGA, DRM, etc), are money-grubbing douche-bags; but at least they've got the balls to stand by their products, even if they're outdated by today's standards.
          • Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Microsoft HAD to because they lost a ***** of money on the console and are still trying to turn a profit. You can't compare the console market, based on the loss-leader principal, to any other business, it doesn't work.
        • maexus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree Apple shouldn't abandon some of it's older products but it also allows for quicker development of new products without the burden of backward compatibility.
      • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Adjust for the month of release for each model that has at least an 867Mhz G4 and FireWire (and to be fair, most of these models will also need to be upgraded to at least 1 gb of ram for decent performance)
        Every eMac since 2003
        Every iMac since 2003
        Every PowerMac since 2001
        Every iBook since 2003
        Every PowerBook since 2001
        Each of these models, some over 6 years old, will run Leopard. Meanwhile many PCs with Windows bought as late as last year are incapable of running Vista. Obviously the home-built models are not what I'm talking about here. And certainly most of those models that were incapable of running Vista can be upgraded as well, but most people who buy PCs never open it to upgrade. They just went and bought a new computer when they felt they needed Vista.

        Read into it what you will. I'm not trying to slam Microsoft or Vista, I'm just rebutting the argument that Apple makes people upgrade continously for new OS releases.
        • javaroast, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Seems like pretty similar upgrade paths to me. Believe me I'm no fan of Microsoft, but the scenario you through out has very similar upgrade paths. As they both should run on older hardware, but you might need to upgrade memory. My guess is that if anything a slightly larger percentage of Windows users open their computer than Mac users if you believe all of what you hear. Whether that is a good thing or not is a completely different debate.
        • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1We don't know what Leopard's requirements are going to be yet. The rumored 867mhz may be a recommended spec, not a requirement. We'll know any day now, at any rate.
        • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6"Windows bought as late as last year are incapable of running Vista"

          You can buy a PC with *any* hardware configuration, so, you could buy a PC today that wouldnt run Windows 95, what what is the point?
          • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3There it is! Wow, you missed it as it went right over your head. Sorry
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Outside of a few iPods and people complaining that they can't get new software for 10.2.8, what the hell is Apple doing to break backward compatibility, exactly?
    • Zorkon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I remember the *very* first time I tried Bootcamp, the installer told me that it was a time-limited beta. I clicked OK because I understood those terms, but I'm sure there will be hundreds or thousands of people that are going to complain about this.
    • TejInLA, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2From what they said before, the windows install will continue to fuction, but the bootcamp utility that lets you set it up will not.
  • MrPhultz, on 10/10/2007, -5/+41So, what's the point? No one paid for the software to begin with. And, it's not like everyone's boot camp is going to just stop working on the day Leopard is released.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Exactly. This is a mountain out of a molehill.
    • vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I still got 1.2 boot DMG camp if I really wanted to revert.
  • aussieNickuss, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6Now is boot camp gonna just stop working once they release Leopard?......or will it just not be "supported" anymore? If it is the former....puck you Apple...if the latter....nevermind. Not that I won't be getting Leopard when it comes out, but it may take a few weeks for the department to send the discs out.....and I don't wanna be without my bootcamp in that time!
    • tomwhughes, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6haha do you by any chance watch the fantastic TV show "Summer Heights High" - "puck you miss"
      • aussieNickuss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yep. I was gonna type (with a P) next to it. But the majority of the Digg crowd wouldn't know what the hell it meant.
  • llsethj, on 10/24/2007, -29/+6more BS from Apple...surprise
    • piwy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8RTFA. Overly sensationalist title. They just won't support it anymore. (aka the license expires)
  • morphie, on 10/10/2007, -10/+38What's the big surprise? The conditions were simple. The bootcamp beta is licensed for use on a trial basis for a limited time. You knew that from the very beginning! Now that the trial's over, it's time to buy the product just like the rest of us.
    • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4...except what you buy is the *support,* not the actual product. So it looks like you can keep trialing it for some time to come...
      • morphie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well, even less ***** it is then. ;-)
    • d00d, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wait, you read and understood the EULA? Even weirder, you paid attention to the fact that Boot Camp was always meant to be just a trial in Tiger? Get the ***** out sir, clearly you're no real Digg user. You're supposed to be surprised by stuff that was made clear way back when.
  • sprash, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15There is no need to have Boot Camp running in order to be able to run Windows/Linux and MacOS as a multiboot system:
    The "Disk Utitlity.app" provides every necessary functionality to accomplish the task. It is just a bit more complicated.
    • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9<obvious plug>
      Goooo rEFIt! ;)
      </obvious plug>
    • xike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1A well-deserved plug.

      I don't know when the last time was that I updated bootcamp, but I'm still booting windows fine using refit.
  • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -26/+7Lol and Apple fanboys have the nerve to bash Microsoft for making people buy Vista for DX10.
    • DMXell, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12At least our OS doesn't cost $400 to get the best version. Actually, most Apple users aren't bashing Microsoft for that. They're bashing Microsoft because support for Windows XP ends in the first month of 2008, way too early considering how long support for Windows '98 lasted.
      • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -16/+6At least our OS doesn't require overpriced hardware to run.
        • DMXell, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Overpriced? Check your resources again. With all the stuff you get in each Mac, they're usually cheaper (take into account built in Firewire, Bluetooth, Wifi and all the software and then the equivalent to those in Windows).
      • fjc8, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Few people need Windows Vista Ultimate.

        Windows XP is currently scheduled to receive "mainstream" support until 2009 and extended support until 2014. Sales end in 2008. There's a *huge* difference.
        • NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4"Few people need Windows Vista Ultimate."

          Got that right. Truth to tell, nobody needs it at all.

          -jcr
        • DMXell, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0The initial info. said that support would end in 2009, but in recent months it's been said that in January of 2008 support will be cut, mainly due to the poor sells of Vista.
          • fjc8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No, why don't you try to find and read an accurate source? Only *sales* will end in mid-2008. That date was recently EXTENDED from the original date of early 2008. Mainstream support will last until 2009 and extended support will last until 2014.

            Mainstream support will last, as I said, until 2009. Extended support will last until 2014.

            source - support info:
            http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&p ...
            source - sales info:
            http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?typ ...
            From the article:
            "SEATTLE (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile , Research) said on Thursday it plans to keep selling its Windows XP operating system until the end of June 2008, delaying a scheduled transition to its newer Windows Vista software by five months.

            The world's largest software maker introduced Windows Vista in January with the plan to phase out sales of its predecessor, Windows XP, by January 30, 2008."
            [...]
            "The company also said it plans to extend sales of the most basic Windows XP Starter Edition for very low cost computers in emerging markets until June 30, 2010. It had also planned to stop sales of that system in January."
      • Syphon8, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1In the short and long time, ours costs less.
        • DMXell, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Please, please, please, please tell me you aren't saying that Vista costs less? Well if the hardware specs weren't an indication, the inflated price of the actual OS is another. Not to mention the anti-virus software you need, anti-malware software and general PC maintenance (as the average PC user will have to take their PC into a repair store once during its life-time), there's no plausible way that Windows Vista is cheaper in the end.
      • theone3, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6Let's assume for a moment that computers don't come with operating systems, just to make this a clear MS vs Apple Issue.

        OSX 10.0 was released in 2001. XP was released in 2001.
        For a windows home user, until the 2007 release of Vista, You have had to pay for 1 licence at $199, or spread over 6 years, $33/yr. Pro is $299 or $50/yr.
        For an OSX home user, until the 2007 release of leopard, You have had to pay for 6 licences at $129 each (assuming 10.0 cost $129), $129/yr.

        TCO 2001-2007 XP Home Machine: $199
        TCO 2001-2007 XP Pro Machine: $299
        TCO 2001-2007 OSX Machine: $774

        Also, XP SP3 is coming up soon - where's Cheetah's next big update?
        • NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Wow, that's some of the cleverest spinning I've seen since Bill Clinton convinced half the country that he was impeached for getting a blowjob, not for lying about it under oath.

          Your scenario above presumes that the service packs are equivalent to major OS upgrades.

          -jcr
          • theone3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3That's not a scenario - that's how much people have paid to run their computers over the last 6 years.
          • theone3, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1And also, you're a mac user, digg fan and a republican? wtf?
        • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3@jcr: he's right though. his calculations are faultless.
        • BurtCokain, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Hi, your mathematics appears to be broken there. Let's see if someone upgraded from Mac OS 10.0->10.4 (remember 10.5 is the equivalent of Vista, and you didn't include the Vista prices...). They would buy

          OS X 10.0 OS X 10.1 OS X 10.2 OS X 10.3 OS X 10.4
          Which is only 5 OS purchases, not 6. Then, consider that OS X 10.1 was a free upgrade from OS X 10.0 (with a shipping charge).

          Lets say the shipping charge was $20, so 4*129+20 is 536. Still more, but not as much more as you said.

          Now, say you upgraded this year, let's go in and add the cost of Leopard and Vista Ultimate (you know, if I wanted a media centre with proper networking support too. Remember, you can't OEM Vista it as this isn't a new system). So, $400 + $299 = $699, and with leopard, $536 + $129 = $665. Oh my, leopard does work out cheaper! Also, good luck running either on a 2001 computer - Leopard won't run on a 2001 mac, and Vista will be impossible to use or impossible to install on a 2001 PC
          • fjc8, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6What "proper networking" features are present in Ultimate but not in Home Premium? The ability to join a domain? Why do you need that for a media center?
          • BurtCokain, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I don't need that for a media centre, either. However, I wanted Vista for my laptop to use at work and at home, and I need to join a domain at work. I wanted media centre stuff there too so I can hook my TV card up to it at home. I also wanted the right to run it in a VM.
          • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4"Vista will be impossible to use or impossible to install on a 2001 PC"

            Which is surprising considering I've done that many times.
          • theone3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4OK, I'll concede 10.5 is a vista equivalent. But if I didn't own a system that came with 10.0 (at the time, most didn't - it had only been out for a few months) I still had to pay for 10.1, which was basically a service pack. So 5 upgrades, not 6. TCO: $645 vs $199. And we're not talking hardware, we're talking the lowest common denominator - software.

            There is absolutely no reason for anyone who wants a home media center to require domain support or volume shadow copies. Ultimate is basically just a test platform, I don't think they're seriously expecting anyone to actually be foolish enough to buy it - after all, it offers nothing of value unless you're in extremely unusual circumstances - and the ultimate extras are a complete joke (unfortunately).
        • DMXell, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0Hm... More features or out-dated crap? Sorry, but the $130 is worth it if each new OS X build brings 150+ new things while your Windows-box was left out-dated for five years.
          • theone3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sorry, but for your average user who just edits documents and browses the web, it's completely meaningless and not worth it.
        • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+010.1 was a free upgrade.
          • theone3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2A common misconception - it was free for people who bought a mac in the last 6 months. (i.e. a mac that included OSX) Those who bought 10.0 for their OS9 systems (most users at the time - remember the original imacs?) and found it didn't work had to pay $129 for what was essentially a service pack.
        • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Let's assume for a moment that computers don't come with operating systems, just to make this a clear MS vs Apple Issue.

          OSX 10.0 was released in 2001. XP was released in 2001.
          For a windows home user, until the 2007 release of Vista, You have had to pay for 1 licence at $199, or spread over 6 years, $33/yr. Pro is $299 or $50/yr.
          For an OSX home user, until the 2007 release of leopard, You have had to pay for 6 licences at $129 each (assuming 10.0 cost $129), $129/yr.

          TCO 2001-2007 XP Home Machine: $199
          TCO 2001-2007 XP Pro Machine: $299
          TCO 2001-2007 OSX Machine: $774

          Also, XP SP3 is coming up soon - where's Cheetah's next big update?
      • theone3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1%$^# digg comment system... bury
        • jcannonb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3You are aware that Apple has family pricing don't you? I have 5 Mac's in the house, and I am only going to have to spend $199 to upgrade all 5 machines in total. I did not have to shell out $129*5. There is a huge difference between $1475.00 and $199.00. One other thing you have to take into consideration also, on my Windows machine, I would have to buy MS Office for every machine. Assuming I did it legally, thats $324.00 per machine, where at home, there is nothing iWork '08 will not do for me that office could, and it only cost $79.99. If you then look at iLife, which is optional, but very handy, I spent another $99 for all 5 machines in total because I bought the family pack. So, 199 + 99 + ($79.99*5) is cheaper than the 5 ExPee machines you had at home which also needed office, and come with no iLife like suite.
          • theone3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1There is $0 cost in upgrading MS PCs because they never have to be upgraded. You buy them, and that's it. They come with Office, they come with Windows. Those versions last long enough that no upgrades are necessary. You don't buy an upgrade for your XP machine for Vista, because an XP machine is usually years old already, and wont last more than another year, whereas if you buy a new Vista PC instead, it costs a few hundred extra and has all the hardware that is assumed on the Vista platform. What you do is simply buy a new PC one year after the release of a new operating system. My mathematical analogy simply demonstrated that you're getting screwed over on software. There's no denying the TCO for a Mac is much higher.

            Also, the MS equivalent of iWork is MS Works. It's $36.95. And if you still need MS office, well chances are you'd need it on the mac too. The most used components of iLife - iPhoto, iMovie, and iDVD come free with home Windows PCs, and while you don't get garageband or iweb, you don't have to pay $79 for basic OS functionality either. Oh, and windows media encoder is a free download, so no QT Pro either.
    • NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What Apple fan has bashed Microsoft for not back-porting new software to XP?

      -jcr
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Lol and Apple-bashers like over90000 have no ***** clue what they're talking about!
    • Billions, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Stop 'Laughing Out Loud" for a minute and "Read The ***** Article"

      ...And who's buying Vista?
  • 4vector, on 10/10/2007, -20/+15We did all the beta testing for them and we get nothing for it.
    • lonnieh, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12... SO YOU GET NOTHING! YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY SIR!
    • morphie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20Using the product for free is nothing? If I were apple, I would say to you: go to hell, we'll never release beta software for free ever again.
    • RetlawST, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I've done a couple of beta tests and none of them gave me the software for free after it was over.
      • tgoose, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I guess you've never run Linux, then.
      • tgoose, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I guess you've never run Linux, then.
    • RickySan65, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Welcome to the real world
    • Billions, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Was your time being able to use Windows on your Mac hardware not useful? The burden to make it worth using is on YOU. I don't agree with your sentiment.
  • quakenul, on 10/10/2007, -18/+30a) The Boot Camp Assistant Version 1.4 will stop working. That means, you won't be able to create a new partition with it and you won't be able to burn a driver cd.
    b) The partition you created until then WON'T stop working.

    But fear not. As far as the "create partition" part is concerned you won't need the fancy boot camp assistant. Just go with:

    diskutil resizeVolume disk0s2 55G "MS-DOS FAT32" "Windows Partition"

    and during winxp install reformat the drive to NTFS.

    That said, Apple is seriously ***** up to remove a feature, which they actually advertised with, and got people (as me) to switch to a mac, which i would never have done without boot camp. But I guess that's part of the apple mentality: pay or die.
    • xXMetalJesusXx, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11"But I guess that's part of the apple mentality: pay or die."
      They never blind-sided you...this was all posted on their website a while back, if you failed to research it before buying a computer, it's on no one but you.
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Every time an Application mandates the recent $130 update, come back and tell us this.
    • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4why did you switch to mac when you needed to keep using windows in the first place?
      • KyleGoetz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11That's retarded. It's like saying: Why do you use Digg when you still visit Slashdot?
        Answer: Because they're not mutually exclusive. xXMetalJesusXx didn't "switch." He uses /both/.
        I use XP on my MacBook Pro for games, but use OSX for everything else. I switched because OSX is superior. And, after a month of using OSX, I understand that OSX /is/ superior.
        • xXMetalJesusXx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Although Replies within replies rarely get read...Nicely said.
          Switching to a Mac no longer means turning your back on Windows...it means having a proper OS to run when you don't NEED windows. I love Mac OSX...I only boot Vista for games, and I only boot Ubuntu on my ibook to learn more about linux because I'm a friggen noob...lol
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3It has always said on their site that this is a beta feature and that you shouldn't rely on it for any kind of business.
    • tucsonwc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Such whining. Upgrading to Leopard will be easy and painless.
      Just as going from Panther to Tiger was.
      Cry me a river.
    • colincornaby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually they advertised that you could use Windows with VMWare and Parallels. But regardless, Boot Camp won't stop working when Leopard comes out. And the support for booting non-Mac OS systems is all in the BIOS of the computer. The Boot Camp assistant is just a repartitioning tool. Even after the Boot Camp Assistant expires you will still be able to create new Windows installs. Heck, at work we have Mac Minis running just Windows, and Boot Camp never even entered the picture. Just stuck in the Windows cd and held down C.
  • nixfu, on 10/10/2007, -8/+18Um...it has NOTHING TO DO with Leopard coming out.


    The bootcamp beta has had this expiration date for a LONG LONG time now....and will expire if Leopard comes out early or late at the same time it already is going to.
  • paulgibson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16This should come as no surprise to anyone using it (me included) as it was always made clear from the start. I use this in a production environment too, so I always realised that I would be eventually needing to upgrade to Leopard, and quite honestly, if there are folk out there that didn't make this connection, then that's unfortunate but It was made very clear.

    I just cant figure out why stories like this are spinning around!! So what, a beta expired and u have to purchase something, that's they way companies make money.
    • natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6In about four or five years, we'll see threads on Digg bitching because Tiger isn't supported anymore. "Why is Apple charging me money to upgrade my software? Why can't I benefit from the hundreds of millions of dollars of research and development they've done since I last spent any money on it? You can have Tiger when you pry it from my cold dead fingers, Apple >:-O"

      I can't conceive of why people are complaining. Everyone knew the beta would expire.
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Why does Apple charge you for what Microsoft gives its customers for free?
        • brumoeller, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0What, exactly, does Microsoft give to its customers for free????????????????????????

          Microsoft is charging for Vista, why is it surprising that Apple would change for their new OS?
  • petejonesrn, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6Did this seriously make the *front page* of digg?
  • whitlock, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2With free alternative boot loader rEFIt, this shouldn't really be that big of an issue. Better than bootcamp, though you don't get the nice driver CD. I'm sure that there will be sites where you can download the Apple drivers (if they don't already exist).
    • colincornaby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Apple's default bootloader will already boot Windows without using Boot Camp. Why is rEFIt necessary?
  • ramenite, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4This is what Apple always does with software.

    Apple tacks on these point releases for $129 or so every couple years, and makes people upgrade by not supporting, or forcing the new versions of their software on their old versions.

    Yeah, talk about "stick with the old versions" all you want, but it's just Apple trying to milk people out of money all they can. Microsoft doesn't even force OS upgrades as much as Apple does. I'm sure the next versions of iLife, and everything else they have will be "Leopard Only" on their next release.
    • jcannonb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Are you really that blind? Microsoft for a while now has been making peeps update their OS if you want to use newer versions of Microsoft Orifice.
      • paulgibson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1lol I had to read that twice....geez I'm slow :P
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1And Microsoft Office (oh, i see what you did there) is a seperate Application Suite. Not at all like a minor utility.

        When MS released the last version of System Internals, did they "save it up" to put in a $130 update? How about Live Messenger? It runs on Windows 2000 that has recieved Free updates since its inital license was sold.

        The point is clearly that Mac OS costs about $130 every year.
        • tian2992, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But the $400 for Vi$ta will last for a "lifetime"...
    • RetlawST, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Wait, did you just slam Apple because they have a decent upgrade cycle? Every OS X upgrade has been a speed increase with a feature increase...I'm not quite sure what you're angry about.
    • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1It has been every year up until this update (probably for marketing against Vista). $130 per year for updates.
  • damieng, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1More information on what this actually means, when it happens and what is affected can be found at http://www.digg.com/apple/Apple_s_Boot_Camp_beyond ...

    [)amien
  • jdepp, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1not so unreasonable. anyone able to run bootcamp can upgrade to leopard -
  • onestep, on 10/24/2007, -0/+11Bootcamp will CONTINUE to work, the fact is the LICENSE expires. What this essentially means is that if you don't upgrade, you are breaking the license agreement. Your Windows will still work, but you will have a moral and legal obligation to upgrade to Leopard. If you are using Bootcamp, and you read all agreements, Apple made it perfectly clear this would beta would be ending. To think otherwise is naive.
    • TejInLA, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The bootcamp partitions will continue to work. The assistant that lets you set them up and creates the windows driver cd will not.
    • arjung, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2don't we ALL have a moral obligation to upgrade to Leopard?
    • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't worry about it, they're all running "borrowed" copies on WIndows in their bootcamps anyhow, a small thing like a licence violation isn't going to stop them.
  • 21chrisp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6What's there to get so pissed off about? It's beta software and it will still WORK, you just won't get support from Apple. This is really better than the industry norm - which is to provide no support for beta software to begin with.
  • l0ne, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3It Was Written In The License You Accepted When You Installed It. (Yep, You Need To Actually Read Those Things Sometimes.) Also, It Is Common Practice With Beta Software, Especially Beta Software On The Mac, And Beta Software From Apple. Finally, I Have A Distinct Dislike For Titles With All Words Capitalized (As Opposed To Title Case).
    Buried As Lame.
    • CATSCEO, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Capitalizing Every Word In A Sentence Is Fun.
  • fffizzz, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Ohh god help us all! FFS, just upgrade to 1.4... how the hell is this newsworthy? OMG IM A MORON AND DONT KNOW HOW TO UPGRADE! LETS BLAME APPLE FOR MY IGNORANCE!!! REVOLT NOW!@
  • velocitychannel, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9How come no one cried like this when Microsoft's Office 2007 Beta expired and you were forced to go out and buy it? Or the Windows Vista betas for that matter?

    Why is it that people have become such a bunch of crybabies who expect everything for free? Shut up, move out of mommy's basement, get jobs and pay for Leopard if you want to continue the ability to create new partitions with Boot Camp. Christ!
    • DagMX, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2umm, because those were major products and noone expected to use them for free forever.

      bootcamps smaller and noone paid attention to the licensing
    • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Because Microsoft Office is a massive Application suite, and Bootcamp is a trivial partition manager utility.

      I expect to pay for Applications of the scale of MS Office, not for minor needling little utilities that are free on Microsoft's Operating Systems.
  • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3I am loving this. As Apple continues to grow, the fanboys will have to suffer growing negative press about Apple as well. God I love watching them squirm.
    • tizz66, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9This isn't negative press. This is about beta software expiring, which is what usually happens. Anyone with a brain realises that this is just an attempt to whip up a storm in a teacup.
      • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5tizz, remember who you're talking to
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Bootcamp is a trivial utilitiy -- why is Apple trying to charge for it? GUIs to partition / boot managers are free on FreeBSD. Why doesnt Apple just support those instead?
        • MadOtaku, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The operating system is free on *Free*BSD.
    • Billions, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Oh, troll... Don't break the pixels that form your 'refresh' button.
  • mjcoury, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6It's a beta, its suppose to expire, in the words of The Governator, "Stop Whinning"
  • jagnum1fan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I am a network tech for a school district and we use macs throughout the county. We have administrators that run boot camp so our Apple contact told us that if you upgrade to the 1.4 beta before Leopard is released you will be fine. So just don't worry about it who cares.
  • MrOrange, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2Apple is going downhill.
  • Murmillo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+31Oh man, i can't read this crap anymore. Digg has become such an Apple-hating troll cave.

    We all knew that Boot Camp was just a Beta and that it will be sold with Leopard. Nothing new here. The Expiration-Date was all ready in there at a time when Leopard's release date was set to June. It seems like every peace of anti-Apple B.S. on the web is making Digg's front page these days.

    But hey: who is running the ads on Digg?

    And now, bury me.
    • osage, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1i digg u dude
    • vacuum2440, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1its true...like jeez what a peice of crap article
      this was going to happen for the longest time and its not even a big deal we were lucky apple even came out with such a program in the first place
    • SD70MACMAN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What about all the iPhone locking/bricking stuff that EASILY makes it to the top of Digg? Or the new iPod releases that shot to the top? (The new Zunes hardly made it and they're a bigger step than 5.5G -> 6G iPods.) Or how about anything related to the iPhone? Or Steve Jobs taking a *****? I hardly think that people on Digg are anti-Apple. Its just getting a little old and over hyped. Hell, I hate Apple atm because I'm sick of hearing about them. And when I'm around my Apple fanboy friends, it just never ends.

      Granted, it's a terrible article and its sorta obvious that people were informed of the limitations of Boot Camp, can't really understand why people are bitching. Anywhoo, bury away!
  • bl4cklight, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Boot camp was some "candy" while waiting for Leopard, it was advertised as a Leopard feature that you can have right now in BETA. The only important thing is... the windows partition must still "work" while I wait to do the upgrade.
    Anyway, power-users having boot camp installed have no reason not to upgrade, who doesn't want virtual desktops??? and a personal device to travel through time, how convenient! ;-)
  • keozen, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Ok, you get a piece of software (Bootcamp) for free as it's in beta. This piece of software is well documented as being one of the main features of the next upgrade of the OS.

    Why the hell are you then surprised when that software is taken away from you at the end of the beta period? It was even an open beta, anyone could download it.

    Let me know of one other open beta of a serious application that you have used that has allowed people to keep the beta working after the beta period is up? No? You can't? Well then. You were told it was a beta from word go, live with it. *sigh*
    • Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This is the equivalent of Adobe having an Open Beta of the next version of photoshop. Then everyone getting pissed off when the beta license expired because the real application was released. There is no news to see here.
  • Greer70, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2The "Steve Jobs needs a new fleet of cars" tax comes around about once a year. Pony up another Benjamin, Fanboys!
  • germ5150, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2With Parallels as cheap as it is, who needs Bootcamp? I don't want to have to reboot to run XP.
    • Bitaemo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ever try to play a high end game like Bioshock or Farcry under Parallels? Dont bother.
    • xXMetalJesusXx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I agree with Bitaemo...
      I've also seen Parallels completely max out a Macbook Pro's 2 Gig's of RAM while the computer was idle. Parallels will be improved over time, but for now, Dual Booting is the way to go.
  • osage, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1is this news anyway?
  • HolyChimp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I could have sworn I had upgraded to 1.4, but this reminded me to go check, and I guess I was still stuck on 1.2.

    *frantic download music*
  • richardiscool, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2If Microsoft had released a public beta of some software in XP, then made it expire when Vista was released, there'd be outrage.
    • tucsonwc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2But Vista IS a public beta. Whats your point?
  • vacuum2440, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3wow such a slanted title to make apple look bad...boot camp works fine the way it is right now for tiger and it will stay that way, they will just stop developing for the beta version and work soley on the version that comes with leopard...makes sense
  • omgdspmpg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1booooooooooo
  • lacronicus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1wheres the outrage here? havent people been bashing MS for nt putting dx10 on XP? and this is worse because it already works on tiger, whereas with dx10 it may actually be a great deal of trouble to port. come on people.
  • ZeppFreak89, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1another awesome reason to not go to leopard...
    wont be upgrading also because of pro tools le 7...

    apples updates always ***** over my fav high end program :(
    • tucsonwc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1WTF are you talking about? IT will be BUILT INTO LEOPARD you moron.
    • Billions, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Plus Digidesign has been moving faster to support OS X releases, you shouldn't have to wait long.
  • tyrione, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Grow up DIGG. These fraudulent/misleading Captions are just crap. Your stupid text makes InfoWeek look like a Tabloid.

    ``Tiger Users Left Out In The Cold.''
  • rowlodge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Apple said. "Leopard, which is scheduled to ship this month, will include Boot Camp."
  • Kitsune818, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1mouseover-ads.die.die.die
  • macwac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Old news.. this was told to everyone at the world wide developers conference 07..
  • graphicoutput, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Damn. I know it's a beta and all, but I just bought my first mac and was hoping to wait a few months for Leopard. Looks like I have to spend _another_ wad of cash just to play TF2 with my friends on the weekend.
    • tucsonwc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It will still WORK on your computer under tiger. calm down.
      • graphicoutput, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I guess I missed that. Well, that's good, thanks.
  • moosepile, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Bootcamp is three things:
    - A quick EFI modification (I'm not even sure about that)
    - A partitioning tool
    - A bundle of hardware drivers for Windows

    That's it - if you already have it installed, and stay with Tiger, it will continue to work. I'd be a little leary of doing firmware updates until they are proven not to break your boot loader (but there's always RefiT). If you get new hardware, your going to get Leopard anyway.
    • colincornaby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Bootcamp doesn't actually modify the EFI. That functionality is already built into EFI. So yes, you can boot from Windows without even using the Boot Camp software.
  • Iwantawii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I hope someday they make tri-booting easier. A decent chunk of their userbase I'd imagine would install a 3rd OS. There's good competition popping up on the Linux front, maybe that has something to do with it.
  • wiihuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1so i dual-boot with boot camp, but i don't use windows. i dual-boot os x and ubuntu. really, if i'm going to dump either OS because boot camp dies on me, it'll be OS X. i've already got all the eye candy that leopard offers with Ubuntu (CF and AWN) and on my macbook, HDD space is at a premium, i really don't want Time Machine.

    Is bootcamp going to stop working on my computer or will i just stop getting support (that i've never needed) for it?
  • theprez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The faster leopard gets here the better.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.