 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / General / May 2006Ordered MacBook ... Where to get Windows XP?
Well, after putting my hands on the new MacBook at the store the other day, I ordered one to replace my iMac G4. It should be here next week. I can't wait! It occurs to me, though, that I might want to run Windows on the thing now and then, and never have to fire up my old Pentium MMX PC, which runs super-slow and sounds like a jet engine. But whether I use Boot Camp or Parallels, I'll need a non-upgrade copy of Windows XP. And a retail copy of Windows is *expensive*, at $199 or $299 (for Home or Pro, respectively). Any thoughts on a cheaper route? I see some people selling OEM copies of Win XP Home on eBay for around $85, and that would probably do the trick, assuming there's nothing special about an OEM version that would keep it from working on the Mac. Any other thoughts? I'm not at all familiar with the whole "activation" scheme, so I don't know if I could buy a copy that somebody's no longer using, or something like that. Thanks for any info!  SignatureGarner R. Miller Clifton Park, NY =USA= http://www.garnermiller.com/ > Any other thoughts? I'm not at all familiar with the whole > "activation" scheme, so I don't know if I could buy a copy that > somebody's no longer using, or something like that. I would bite the bullet if I wanted to run XP. I'm not familiar with Microsoft's system, but I have some indication that they track software pretty well. Any disc you didn't buy pristine might cause problems. This is my ignorance talking, but I'd buy a new copy of the OS to make sure there wasn't unwanted baggage, and I knew the history of the particular copy of the OS I had. You might want to wait for Vista if you can see that far :-) worth less than two cents. leo Signature<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/> >> Any other thoughts? I'm not at all familiar with the whole >> "activation" scheme, so I don't know if I could buy a copy that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You might want to wait for Vista if you can see that far :-) > worth less than two cents. Why does he need it? Most stuff runs on Win 2K, that does not need any "activation". H. > Why does he need it? Most stuff runs on Win 2K, that does not need any > "activation". Where does one get a copy of Win2K? > Where does one get a copy of Win2K? eBay? <http://cgi.ebay.com/MICROSOFT-MS-WINDOWS-2000-PROFESSIONAL-OEM-w-COA_W0Q QitemZ7243499167QQcategoryZ41885QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem> <http://cgi.ebay.com/Microsoft-Windows-2000-Professional-Full-No-Reserve_ W0QQitemZ7243537860QQcategoryZ41885QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem> <http://cgi.ebay.com/WINDOWS-2000-PRO-WITH-CERTIFICATE-OF-AUTHENTICITY_W0 QQitemZ7243572825QQcategoryZ41885QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem> SignatureArticle II of the impeachment charges against President Nixon was warrantless wiretapping > > Where does one get a copy of Win2K? > > eBay? True, but I think the point is that Garner started this thread to ask where he can get WinXP, and eventually it was suggested he use Win2K instead, as if everyone just has a copy of _that_ laying around. SignatureMike Rosenberg <http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida <http://www.cafepress.com/macconsult,macconsult4> Mac-themed T-shirts <http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart > True, but I think the point is that Garner started this thread to ask > where he can get WinXP, and eventually it was suggested he use Win2K > instead, as if everyone just has a copy of _that_ laying around. Er, I used to have tons of them. They came with every server we ordered, even though we told them not to send them. Then I became unemployed. I might have one or two hanging around still. But either way, it's not supported with Boot Camp anyway. SignatureArticle II of the impeachment charges against President Nixon was warrantless wiretapping > Then I became unemployed. I might have one or two hanging around still. > But either way, it's not supported with Boot Camp anyway. Good to know. H. > > But either way, it's not supported with Boot Camp anyway. > > Good to know. Yes, but it wasn't exactly a secret since Apple specifically states that Boot Camp requires "A bona fide installation disc for Microsoft Windows XP, Service Pack 2, Home or Professional." SignatureMike Rosenberg <http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida <http://www.cafepress.com/macconsult,macconsult4> Mac-themed T-shirts <http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart Salut Heiko > >> Any other thoughts? I'm not at all familiar with the whole > >> "activation" scheme, so I don't know if I could buy a copy that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Why does he need it? Most stuff runs on Win 2K, that does not need any > "activation". ...because Bootcamp does not support Win2K? (Win XP Pro or Home Service Pack 2 required) <http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/> Cheers Andreas SignatureMacAndreas Rutishauser, <http://www.MacAndreas.ch> EDV-Dienstleistungen, Hard- und Software, Internet und Netzwerk Beratung, Unterstuetzung und Schulung <mailto:andreas@MacAndreas.ch>, Fon: 044 / 721 36 47 > Why does he need it? Most stuff runs on Win 2K, that does not need any > "activation". OP here. You're right -- there isn't anything that I want to run that specifically requires activation, and I already own Win 2000 from an old PC. Boot camp doesn't support 2000 (unfortunately), but Parallels *does*. I think I'll try that route and see if it does what I need before investing anything in another copy of Windows. Thanks -- Now all I need is for the MacBook to get here! SignatureGarner R. Miller Clifton Park, NY =USA= http://www.garnermiller.com/ > You're right -- there isn't anything that I want to run that > specifically requires activation, and I already own Win 2000 from an > old PC. And Windows 2000 doesn't suck near as much as XP. > > You're right -- there isn't anything that I want to run that > > specifically requires activation, and I already own Win 2000 from an > > old PC. > > And Windows 2000 doesn't suck near as much as XP. Indeed; I think it was the best Windows I've used, as Windows goes. (And by "requires activation" above, I meant "requires XP") SignatureGarner R. Miller Clifton Park, NY =USA= http://www.garnermiller.com/ > And Windows 2000 doesn't suck near as much as XP. What allready really sucks IMHO is that they have kicked MIME out of "userland", see "filetypes" in Win 95 and 98, those still were something like a complete "Internet OS", as far as the essentials are concerned, well design... What I really like in Win2K is Appletalk, I can print from the Thinkpad on the dear and noble old Laserwriter IIg, they dont have it in XP anymore. But enough of that, H. > Thanks for any info! Might want to try one of the MS Windows groups for this question. SignatureArticle II of the impeachment charges against President Nixon was warrantless wiretapping > > Thanks for any info! > > Might want to try one of the MS Windows groups for this question. LOL, sounds like something I'd say in reply to my question. :-) Good idea, I'll do that. SignatureGarner R. Miller Clifton Park, NY =USA= http://www.garnermiller.com/ > LOL, sounds like something I'd say in reply to my question. :-) Honestly, the best answer I'd have on tap otherwise would be something you've already tried, since you've posted the retail price you found. <sigh> SignatureArticle II of the impeachment charges against President Nixon was warrantless wiretapping > Well, after putting my hands on the new MacBook at the store the other > day, I ordered one to replace my iMac G4. It should be here next week. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Clifton Park, NY =USA= > http://www.garnermiller.com/ I don't recommend putting XP on a Mac, there are weird issues. And you don't get much help from either Bill, or Steve. With OEMS, be careful, some of them are hardware locked (dell, gateway, hp ,etc). Check before you puchace. There are generic OEMs available, however. THe activation thing is usually painless, If you can get internet access. the worst is you might have to do is make a phone call to India. Don't worry, The Indians are friendy, and do their best to Activate. (they are a little lax on MS stupid-rules) > I don't recommend putting XP on a Mac, there are weird issues. And you > don't get much help from either Bill, or Steve. Yeah, that's something I don't get. Apple says they allow XP installation but they won't support it. Microsoft will tell you to contact the company who made the hardware. So who do ya call? (NOT Ghostbusters) SignatureArticle II of the impeachment charges against President Nixon was warrantless wiretapping > > I don't recommend putting XP on a Mac, there are weird issues. And you > > don't get much help from either Bill, or Steve. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > contact the company who made the hardware. So who do ya call? (NOT > Ghostbusters) I understand why, sort of. Microsoft wrote windows XP with the expectation that it would be run on a certian narrow set of hardware. Some hack figures out how to dual boot it on a Mac, wins contest, and a few thousand bucks. Apple says "Cool! We can refine the process so anyone can do it." Within weeks appears boot camp, but it's STILL a hack. It's not properly tested, so Apple wants nothing to do with it, they didn't write Windows, and they're prowd of it. Microsoft says, "We do not support this platform, Windows was never intended for it." Who's right? Both. It's a hack. Apple has long had this inferiority-superiority complex. They insist they're better that PCs and Particularly Windows, but at the same time, they're always doing SOMETHING, to run Windows, or windows programs on a Mac. Like those old dos-compatible macs, had an Intel chip on a daughter card, Ran both Windows 3.11 and Mac OS. And there is the virtual PC, and all kinds of emulators. > Apple has long had this inferiority-superiority complex. Well, that is possible - but I find it totally understandable that Apple will not support XP. They wouldn't have in VPC either. What they've done, as you say, is to make it _possible_ to run it on a Mac. In a cinch, from Leopard onwards (when the BootCamp functionality presumably is not beta anymore) they will probably support you as far as creating the Windows partition and the driver CD is concerned - then you'll be on your own from there on in, i.e., in Windows-land with its beautiful but somewhat sterile geen grass and blue sky... ;-) The rest, IMHO, depends on whether MS will certify Apple's hardware (if that is what they do - I don't run Windows) and then offer suport for XP on it, as for any other PC maker. Signature/Jon For mail address, run the following in Terminal: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc Skype: storhaugen > > > I don't recommend putting XP on a Mac, there are weird issues. And you > > > don't get much help from either Bill, or Steve. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "Cool! We can refine the process so anyone can do it." Within weeks > appears boot camp, but it's STILL a hack. Windows isn't designed to run on a narrow set of hardware; it's designed to run on as broad of set of hardware as Microsoft can reasonably manage. The new Macs are not particularly odd, hardware-wise. They use the same Intel chipsets and processors as Dell's equivalent systems, their video hardware is similar, etc. And I'd be surprised if the Windows drivers Apple makes available had received much less testing than the equivalents other major x86 OEMs ship. (Windows OEMs are notorious for tossing parts in a box, throwing the right drivers on, and shipping without much integration testing.) Apple doesn't support Boot Camp because they can get away with not supporting it, since it's still labeled as a beta. They likely will support it when it ships as part of Leopard. Apple will never, however, provide support for Windows itself. Why should they? It's third-party software that doesn't even ship with the computer. Would you call Apple for Photoshop support, just because that runs on a Mac? Microsoft should theoretically support retail (not OEM) copies of Windows installed on Apple hardware, the same as they do on e.g. home-built systems. But the "blame the other guy" game has been played for many years in the Wintel world. One of the neat things about owning a Mac has always been that at least your operating system and hardware vendor can't play that game, since they're the same company. But if you choose to run something other than OS X on your Mac, you're in the same boat everyone else has always been in. [snip] Signature"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law." -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005 > Microsoft wrote windows XP with the expectation that it would be run > on a certian narrow set of hardware. Some hack figures out how to > dual boot it on a Mac, wins contest, and a few thousand bucks. Apple > says "Cool! We can refine the process so anyone can do it." Within > weeks appears boot camp, but it's STILL a hack. Apple had been working on Boot Camp way before that contest. > It's not properly tested, so Apple wants nothing to do with it, they > didn't write Windows, and they're prowd of it. Microsoft says, "We do > not support this platform, Windows was never intended for it." > > Who's right? Both. It's a hack. When a manufacturer modifies its own PROM, it's a hack? The reason that Apple doesn't support it is because it is beta software. When it becomes an official part of the OS (in Leopard), I'm sure that Apple will be supporting it. > Apple has long had this inferiority-superiority complex. They insist > they're better that PCs and Particularly Windows, but at the same > time, they're always doing SOMETHING, to run Windows, or windows > programs on a Mac. Like those old dos-compatible macs, had an Intel > chip on a daughter card, Ran both Windows 3.11 and Mac OS. And there > is the virtual PC, and all kinds of emulators. Always? The one valid example you gave doesn't support "always." As for Virtual PC and the few other emulators, none of them have been Apple products; in fact, VPC is a Microsoft Product--they're not valid examples of Apple doing something to run Windows. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. >>Microsoft wrote windows XP with the expectation that it would be run >>on a certian narrow set of hardware. Some hack figures out how to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > When it becomes an official part of the OS (in Leopard), I'm sure that > Apple will be supporting it. I don't think it has anything to do with it's beta status. I'd be surprised if Apple ever supported anything more than what Jon suggested earlier: "In a cinch, from Leopard onwards (when the BootCamp functionality presumably is not beta anymore) they will probably support you as far as creating the Windows partition and the driver CD is concerned - then you'll be on your own from there on in, i.e., in Windows-land with its beautiful but somewhat sterile geen grass and blue sky... ;-) The rest, IMHO, depends on whether MS will certify Apple's hardware (if that is what they do - I don't run Windows) and then offer suport for XP on it, as for any other PC maker." I don't see any reason for Apple to support anything more than that. Companies like Dell, HP, Gateway, etc, provide Windows support because they sell their computers with Windows already installed so it's a package deal. The only time it would make sense for Apple to provide full support for Windows is if they sold Macs already set up with both OS X and Windows installed, or, shudder, if they sold Macs with only Windows installed. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > > The reason that Apple doesn't support it is because it is beta > > software. When it becomes an official part of the OS (in Leopard), [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > surprised if Apple ever supported anything more than what Jon > suggested earlier: Apple doesn't support even that much, because it's beta. > "In a cinch, from Leopard onwards (when the BootCamp functionality > presumably is not beta anymore) they will probably support you as far > as creating the Windows partition and the driver CD is concerned - > then you'll be on your own from there on in, i.e., in Windows-land > with its beautiful but somewhat sterile geen grass and blue sky... > ;-) That's all that I would expect Apple to support. Expecting them to support Windows itself is like expecting them to support MS Office or Adobe Creative Suite. So it appears that you and I are in agreement on that point. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > products; in fact, VPC is a Microsoft Product--they're not valid > examples of Apple doing something to run Windows. It wasn't always a Microsoft product--they bought it. But it never was an Apple product. SignatureWes Groleau ----------- "Thinking I'm dumb gives people something to feel smug about. Why should I disillusion them?" -- Charles Wallace (in _A_Wrinkle_In_Time_) > > > I don't recommend putting XP on a Mac, there are weird issues. And you > > > don't get much help from either Bill, or Steve. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Microsoft wrote windows XP with the expectation that it would be run on > a certian narrow set of hardware. They expect it to be run on a fairly wide range of hardware as long as it matches certain baseline specs they've dictated to manufacturers. But they only barely support it regardless. > Some hack figures out how to dual > boot it on a Mac, wins contest, and a few thousand bucks. Apple says > "Cool! We can refine the process so anyone can do it." Within weeks > appears boot camp, but it's STILL a hack. Um. a) You don't seriously think Apple started work on Boot Camp _after_ that contest started (let alone was won), do you? b) It's actually not really a hack. They flashed the firmware to add BIOS support and provided drivers for some of their atypical hardware. > It's not properly tested, so Apple wants nothing to do with it, they > didn't write Windows, and they're prowd of it. Apple doesn't support any software they didn't write. They're slightly better than MS at supporting the stuff they did write. > ... And there is the virtual PC, and all kinds of emulators. None of which Apple had anything particular to do with. Signature"Congurutulation!!!" - The subject line on some spam I received recently. I have no idea what it means, but it's such a cool "word" (by which I mean pronouncable sequence of letters) regardless. > Apple has long had this inferiority-superiority complex. They insist > they're better that PCs and Particularly Windows, but at the same time, > they're always doing SOMETHING, to run Windows, or windows programs on > a Mac. This is not some kind of 'inferiority-superiority complex.' Apple offers what they offer, and some of us find it worth buying. Some people who see a Mac as worth buying, though, need to interact with Windows-using colleagues. If Word/Excel/Powerpoint are sufficient, there is the Mac Business Unit of Microsoft. Most of the time, that is sufficient for me. Ofttimes, though, there is that one critical Windows-only application. In my case, some of the middleware we use, like WebLogic, Sonic/JMS, or Intersperse, is only supported on Windows. I therefore need a windows box, and with Parallels, that can be my Mac. (I admit - I managed to get WebLogic server and workshop working on my Mac eventually, but it took more work than I enjoyed doing for setup.) I know a few Linux admins who have the same experience with Linux. They need a for-real x86 Linux install, exactly as it comes off the disks, to test software before it goes to a staging server. Again, BootCamp or Parallels can solve that problem, and let them keep using a Mac when all they need is bash, emacs, python, ruby, Apache, MySql, etc. So, it is not a case of 'inferiority', but recognition that a customer with one critical app might be willing to pay $300 to run it under XP. They then can run their mac as a mac the rest of the time. Scott SignatureScott Ellsworth scott@alodar.nospam.com Java and database consulting for the life sciences > Again, BootCamp or > Parallels can solve that problem, and let them keep using a Mac when all > they need is bash, emacs, python, ruby, Apache, MySql, etc. All of which are available on their Mac, of course... > > Again, BootCamp or > > Parallels can solve that problem, and let them keep using a Mac when all > > they need is bash, emacs, python, ruby, Apache, MySql, etc. > > All of which are available on their Mac, of course... Um, I think that was his point! At least that's how I read it. Mike > > > Again, BootCamp or > > > Parallels can solve that problem, and let them keep using a Mac when all [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Um, I think that was his point! At least that's how I read it. I read it differently, as he mentioned Boot Camp & Parallels. No matter, I've been wrong before. > > > > Again, BootCamp or > > > > Parallels can solve that problem, and let them keep using a Mac when all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I read it differently, as he mentioned Boot Camp & Parallels. No > matter, I've been wrong before. I agree with Mike's reading. I think you took Scott's sentence out of necessary context and thus lost the meaning. The necessary context was that he was talking about people who needed "a for-real x86 Linux install, exactly as it comes off the disks". He was then contrasting that with those same people having times "when all they need is bash...". This was two contrasting situations for the same person, addressed by the two OS options provided by things like Boot Camp or Parallels. In the one case, you need the alternate OS. In the other case, all you need is things that are available natively on the Mac. It is far from a theoretical situation. It is one I have myself, for example. SignatureRichard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain > > > > > Again, BootCamp or > > > > > Parallels can solve that problem, and let them keep using a Mac when [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Parallels. In the one case, you need the alternate OS. In the other > case, all you need is things that are available natively on the Mac. Exactly right, Richard. I was unclear. My mac gives me a quite keen dev environment, with Bash, Apache, MySql, ant, a decent Java 1.5 VM, and a whole bunch of other stuff, and I have it configured very well for what I need to do. That said, it is _not_ identical to Linux, nor do I want it to be. Before trying out a QA deployment on Linux, I would want to try it under real Linux, even if the software versions were ostensibly the same. For that, either Parallels or Boot Camp can solve the problem. For development, though, the Mac works great with Java or LAMP software, even if the software is not absolutely identical. It is identical enough for most of the development. I may need is one bit of middleware or one server app, and for that, Parallels will serve. Scott SignatureScott Ellsworth scott@alodar.nospam.com Java and database consulting for the life sciences > > > > Again, BootCamp or > > > > Parallels can solve that problem, and let them keep using a Mac when [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I read it differently, as he mentioned Boot Camp & Parallels. No > matter, I've been wrong before. Me too. No biggie! Mike Howard S Shubs wrote (in article <howard-B4723F.02162827052006@news.supernews.com>): >> I don't recommend putting XP on a Mac, there are weird issues. And you >> don't get much help from either Bill, or Steve. > > Yeah, that's something I don't get. Apple says they allow XP > installation but they won't support it. It's a beta offering. Get it? > Microsoft will tell you to contact the company who made the hardware. Well, who actually expects to get help from Microsoft? Apart from MSDN subscribers, and even then, only rarely? > So who do ya call? (NOT Ghostbusters) www.google.com SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw > It's a beta offering. Get it? Rarely. Betas are not something I'm willing to waste time on. And buying a copy of XP for one is not something I'd do. > Well, who actually expects to get help from Microsoft? Apart > from MSDN subscribers, and even then, only rarely? Occasionally, their web site is helpful. Believe it or not. SignatureArticle II of the impeachment charges against President Nixon was warrantless wiretapping |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.