Talk:Boot Camp (software)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I think what you are looking for is boot camp, not Boot Camp. AlistairMcMillan 18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow This thing is big.  Top of Google News loads of artiles .Prepare for a lot of traffic to this sight. Auto-generated 6 Apr at 23:24 GMT Top of Sciece section--E-Bod 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not as prominent as real boot camp usage 

message: Does anyone know the origin of the name Boot Camp? How does it make any sense? --Mikeazorin 14:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you're booting Windows. Get it? ...Get it? Noclip 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tentative name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Before Boot Camp 

message: 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)
replies: text:  note, most macs lack enough processor speed to run gnop. i presume that people onlybuy macs for the OS, charging $400 for the same computer that can not be ugraded does not sell much  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.228.120 (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Game compatibility list 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  File systems such as FAT32, NTFS, and HFS Plus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Windows Professional SP2 Student Edition? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  72.43.143.68 14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. 69.203.64.174 22:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disloyal? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not merely a convenience utility 

message: Section would look brilliant as a table. It currently is an unencylopedic list. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Version History

message: 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:
* http://createdigitalmotion.com/index.php?s=bootcamp
* http://vjforums.com/showthread.php?t=16055
* http://www.resolume.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=2414
--Eelke 22:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  S-video adapter 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  3 for 1?

message: 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)
thread_title:  different languages 

message: Ubuntuforum: Bootcamp won't be downloadable any more
pctipp: apple_boot_camp_bricht_die_zelte_ab
: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)
thread_title:  The End Of BootCamp 

message: Discuss.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.214.145 (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geeks Reside Here 

message: "..., 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)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No Tap click support for notebooks? 

message: :Boot Camp is a utility included with Apple Inc.'s Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard" and v10.6 "Snow Leopard" operating systems
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)
replies: text: It was a beta for 10.4 I believe. But it wasn't "officially" released, necessarily. --Thekmc (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before 10.5 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Concerning Apple Update For Windows 7 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusion on the Timeline 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Version 1.3 and 1.4 similarity? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  wubi reference (in See Also) should be removed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Windows XP and Vista dropped. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. 120.151.160.158 (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux compatibility 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Confusing remarks 

message: 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)
thread_title: Windows on Arm on Apple silicon