From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Is it possible to use Boot Camp to dual-boot Linux and OSX? Win XP boot
is not very useful to me. Being able to boot to Linux would be helpful, however.

(How much do we all want to bet that within five years MacOS X is in
the same place as BeOS?)

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-07 17:16:07 +0300, zwsdotcom@gmail.com said:

Is it possible to use Boot Camp to dual-boot Linux and OSX? Win XP boot
is not very useful to me. Being able to boot to Linux would be helpful, however.

(How much do we all want to bet that within five years MacOS X is in
the same place as BeOS?)

What about "abusing" the software? It creates a NTFS partition yes?

So, format the NTFS with ext3 or reiser, install linux and system still
should think it is "windows"?

I am just therotically experimenting here, you are MAD if you try these without backing up!

About the BeOS? Years or months? :)

Ilgaz

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

zwsdotcom@gmail.com writes:

Is it possible to use Boot Camp to dual-boot Linux and OSX? Win XP boot
is not very useful to me. Being able to boot to Linux would be helpful, however.

Folks can already put Linux on PowerPC Macs. Good question
about the Intel Macs, though. I'm not sure BootCamp will be
necessary.

Redhat, I think, has made a commitment to bringing Fedora to Intel
Macs.

What I'd really like would be a layer which allowed me to link to
Intel Linux shared libs easily.

(How much do we all want to bet that within five years MacOS X is in
the same place as BeOS?)

I wouldn't make that bet. What was the installed base of BeOS?

Did anyone ever set up a BeOS machine for their mom to use (ie. was
it ever stable and user-friendly - and *useful* enough for a
novice home user)?

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system


Ilgaz Ocal wrote:

What about "abusing" the software? It creates a NTFS partition yes?

No idea, I am still sitting on the fence about buying an Intel Mac.

I am just therotically experimenting here, you are MAD if you try these without backing up!

I would only try this on a machine with no interesting data on it, so I
could blow everything away and reformat if it all went bad :)

About the BeOS? Years or months? :)

I'm pretty sure iPod Inc... er, I mean Apple, will keep MacOS alive for
a while for show purposes.

However, dual boot to OS B is not a selling point for OS A. People
always wind up spending most of their time in one or the other, and
setting the default boot option to that OS. The other OS gets out of
date. Since more software is available for Win than MacOS, people will
be buying Win software and spending more time in that OS. MacOS will
atrophy.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Folks can already put Linux on PowerPC Macs. Good question

I know, I'm one of them:

<http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-madmac1/> <http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-madmac2/> <http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-madmac3/> <http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-madmac4/>

What I'm interested in is being able to run MacOS for the consumer
stuff like games, and Linux for the development work that I can't get
done inside MacOS.

(How much do we all want to bet that within five years MacOS X is in
the same place as BeOS?)

I wouldn't make that bet. What was the installed base of BeOS?

What was the installed base of OS/2 versions 2.0 through Warp?

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-07 18:50:09 +0300, zwsdotcom@gmail.com said:

What I'm interested in is being able to run MacOS for the consumer
stuff like games

That is a big problem if it is really running XP/Vista with DirectX
monster SDK. I mean the Mactel.

I mean of course there will be games but not "all new games" will be
ported to OS X. "They can boot Windows yes?" CEO of company will ask.

Remember what companies told you when you asked for OS/2 games? "Sir,
it does run DOS better than MS DOS itself, please run our DOS version
of game"

Or linux? "Dual boot to Windows"

Ilgaz

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <1144419367.235772.207630@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
<zwsdotcom@gmail.com> wrote:

(How much do we all want to bet that within five years MacOS X is in
the same place as BeOS?)

You mean dead and all but forgotten? Quite possible, but I prefer not
to bet on outcomes I find so distasteful.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <L5Cdneaxe4UqN6TZRVn-qg@speakeasy.net>,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

In article <1144419367.235772.207630@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
<zwsdotcom@gmail.com> wrote:

(How much do we all want to bet that within five years MacOS X is in
the same place as BeOS?)

You mean dead and all but forgotten? Quite possible, but I prefer not
to bet on outcomes I find so distasteful.

Considering these were two TOTALLY different OSes I don't see the
connection.

BEoS had many problems:

1) next to no hardware drivers as well as next to
nothing outside TCP networking
2) very few programs available until version 4.x (1999)
3) Few powerful X-tools like programming utilities to design
or port programs.
4) Marketing that seemed to pull pages from the Commodore 64-Amiga group
(ie how NOT to do marketing)
5) No clear defined targeted nitch market (see point 4)

MacOS X intel by contrast:

1) Has hardware drivers out the wazoo (thanks to x86 Darwin)
2) Can run most of the already established programs
3) Can run existing Unix/Windows X programs with relatively minor changes
(OpenOffice anyone?)
4) Has powerful tools for program development and reworking (XTools)
5) Has a clear and defined market (Graphics)
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

zwsdotcom@gmail.com wrote:

Ilgaz Ocal wrote:

What about "abusing" the software? It creates a NTFS partition yes?

No idea, I am still sitting on the fence about buying an Intel Mac.

I am just therotically experimenting here, you are MAD if you try these
without backing up!

I would only try this on a machine with no interesting data on it, so I
could blow everything away and reformat if it all went bad :)

About the BeOS? Years or months? :)

I'm pretty sure iPod Inc... er, I mean Apple, will keep MacOS alive for
a while for show purposes.

However, dual boot to OS B is not a selling point for OS A. People
always wind up spending most of their time in one or the other, and
setting the default boot option to that OS. The other OS gets out of
date. Since more software is available for Win than MacOS, people will
be buying Win software and spending more time in that OS. MacOS will
atrophy.

Apple is dying! This time, it's a critical mistake for sure. The
writing is on the wall!

It's pretty obvious that Windows-via-bootcamp is being presented as the
new Classic (dig that crazy greyscale icon!) I suspect more people buy
Macs to use OS X rather than to have expensive hardware they can run
something else on. That is, it's the OS that is the important part.

This is true for me and everyone I know who switched, anyway. Most of
my peers were running some combo of Windows-Linux-Whatever. Now most of
us run OS X, with the occasional need to boot up Windows.

This is the exact market I see BootCamp aimed at. It's not like the
existence of BootCamp means that everyone will magically then have a
copy of Windows. Last I heard, you still gotta pay for XP, and much of
the core Mac market (present company excluded) is just not all that
interested in this "dual-boot" thing they hear about.

Trying to present dual-booting XP as an alternative to this market will
be a hard sell, indeed.

Anyway, BeOS was better than OS X. The rule is that for tech to truly
die it has to be technically better than the alternatives. That way it
can be much-lamented and name-dropped by the cognoscenti for years ;)
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113