Boot Camp 1.2 Released

Im just curious if they have fixed the problem with fan throtteling. My coworker installed vista and it ran hot as hell compared to my macbook pro under osx and we have the same system. Once this is fixed ill probably give it a shot again :-\
 
CyByte said:
Does anyone know how well vista will run on a macbook 2ghz macbook?
Click to expand...

Well, the GMA950 is fully Aero compliant, it'll run pretty damn well I'd expect with 1GB of RAM or more. It's a PC, so any PC with the same specs will run the same.
 
I guess that puts an end to the rumors that Leopard was going to be delayed to ensure Vista support... (although 64bit Vista support is still not there)
 
Mouse acceleration and iSight have both been present in the last few builds. Not sure what you're smokin' on, bro.
 
slatfats said:
I guess that puts an end to the rumors that Leopard was going to be delayed to ensure Vista support... (although 64bit Vista support is still not there)
Click to expand...

I still thought waiting for Vista support was complete BS.
 
well. just installed the new drivers onto my MBP runnning vista... works awesome! so glad they didn't wait until leopard was released.
 
slatfats said:
I guess that puts an end to the rumors that Leopard was going to be delayed to ensure Vista support... (although 64bit Vista support is still not there)
Click to expand...
Why the hell would they delay Mac OS X to add Vista support to Boot Camp? It doesn't make sense.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
Why the hell would they delay Mac OS X to add Vista support to Boot Camp? It doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Well Boot Camp is included in Leopard in it's final form, and if you don't buy Leopard to get Boot Camp, aka, you still want to use Tiger until Leopard is proven, it'll cost you 29$ to buy a Boot Camp box/license.

So that's why people though Boot Camp would delay Leopard. Because they're shipping at the same time; they're part of one another.
 
CyByte said:
Does anyone know how well vista will run on a macbook 2ghz macbook?
Click to expand...


Vista ran supirsingly well on my macbook 2ghz with 1gh of ram (core 2 duo, 120g black model)

i was surprised really at how well it ran, try it out, you wont have issues, it will work.
 
Why should you wait to get leopard? Does Apple have a history of releasing squirrelly OS's to the public? No sarcasm implied, I really want to know.
 
Non necessarily, but they certainly arent perfect either. And that is to be expected with any major OS release by Microsoft or Apple.
There are always a few significant problems found within the first months of release that get patched. I would really be surprised if Leopard came out without a hitch.
 
did anyone get aero glass in the macbook? I'll be upgrading my ram to 2gb and wonder if it will run aero glass.
 
Just for the record: Aero and Aero Glass are the same thing. Vista only has two *new* GUI schemes: Vista Standard (aka Basic) and Vista Aero. Either Aero works or it doesn't, and when it's in operation you'll know it - not only because of the transparency effects but also the appearance of "reflections" on the title bars and borders of windows and that is the "Glass" effect.
 
Forgot to mention that the Intel GMA950 video chip was expressly designed to accomodate Vista's requirements to run Aero without issues, sorry. Microsoft and Intel worked closely together to ensure that the GMA950 could do everything Aero needs without breaking a sweat - it'll even playback HD video content very easily, also.

It might be weak in a lot of gaming, but it's still a solid 256 bit GPU for 2D/3D purposes and plenty of bandwidth for dekstop and video playback purposes.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Forgot to mention that the Intel GMA950 video chip was expressly designed to accomodate Vista's requirements to run Aero without issues, sorry. Microsoft and Intel worked closely together to ensure that the GMA950 could do everything Aero needs without breaking a sweat - it'll even playback HD video content very easily, also.

It might be weak in a lot of gaming, but it's still a solid 256 bit GPU for 2D/3D purposes and plenty of bandwidth for dekstop and video playback purposes.
Click to expand...

The GMA950 is vastly underated. I do play 3D games very nicely on my MacBook in both OS X and XP. Of course the fans wirr up to max though. That's why I have a nearly silent desktop though stocked with a 7800GTX, X-fi, E6400, 2GB of RAM, and a 500GB hdd.
 
Nice, the new bootcamp installer Driver CD will let your iSight work under parallels :D

Just what I was waiting for.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
It might be weak in a lot of gaming, but it's still a solid 256 bit GPU for 2D/3D purposes and plenty of bandwidth for dekstop and video playback purposes.
Click to expand...
Agreed. For 2D graphics, it's more than most of us are likely to need. The only reason you'd need more performance for 2D output, is if you actually do GPU-accelerated editing (Core Image, anyone?).

However, my iBook with its Radeon Mobility 9550 is well over twice as fast at pushing polygons than the Macbook. That should tell you something.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
Agreed. For 2D graphics, it's more than most of us are likely to need. The only reason you'd need more performance for 2D output, is if you actually do GPU-accelerated editing (Core Image, anyone?).

However, my iBook with its Radeon Mobility 9550 is well over twice as fast at pushing polygons than the Macbook. That should tell you something.
Click to expand...

woah really? that's unexpected. I'm glad i stuck with the x1600 in my MBP.
 
Optional87 said:
The GMA950 is vastly underated. I do play 3D games very nicely on my MacBook in both OS X and XP. Of course the fans wirr up to max though. That's why I have a nearly silent desktop though stocked with a 7800GTX, X-fi, E6400, 2GB of RAM, and a 500GB hdd.
Click to expand...


i can barely play CS:S at 1280 x 800 with all details on low, on maps like office and dust 2 area's i drop to 10FPS and, but i can in tunnels and such hit around 40FPS peak, but once there is action, all goes to crap

Now games like civilization III run great, but is more cpu based.
 
Just installed Vista with the latest bootcamp drivers with hardware score of 4.1 on CD MBP! So glad now that I can actually use the trackpad without it crapping out after 3 minutes!

Battery life is still non-existent @ under 1.5 hours on full charge. Currently using input remapper to reduce screen brightness "automatically" but I screwed up the default setting and can't set it back to default, anyone care to take a screenshot so I can see what the default sliders are set to for screen brightness ?

Next up is getting some omega drivers for Vista.
 
is it just me or do the hard drives run continuously in vista? and does the whole MBP run extremely loud compared to in Mac OS?
 
Yes, for the first week or two with Vista (after the installation of Vista) it'll churn the hard drive a lot more frequently than older versions of Windows. Vista has SuperFetch which basically spends the first week or so keeping an eye on your usage patterns, application loading, RAM usage, etc etc and then tunes itself to keep top performance: it'll index the files on the drive, restructure the placement of the files on the drive for optimal loading performance (manual defragging isn't necessary anymore, Vista will do that as required actually), and also use roughly half your installed RAM for data caching to improve the overall speed of the system itself.

There's a ton of threads over in the Operating System subforum to teach you more about Vista if you'd care to browse through it. Or do a search for "superfetch" "readyboost" and you'll find out a lot of good stuff about Vista.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Yes, for the first week or two with Vista (after the installation of Vista) it'll churn the hard drive a lot more frequently than older versions of Windows. Vista has SuperFetch which basically spends the first week or so keeping an eye on your usage patterns, application loading, RAM usage, etc etc and then tunes itself to keep top performance: it'll index the files on the drive, restructure the placement of the files on the drive for optimal loading performance (manual defragging isn't necessary anymore, Vista will do that as required actually), and also use roughly half your installed RAM for data caching to improve the overall speed of the system itself.

There's a ton of threads over in the Operating System subforum to teach you more about Vista if you'd care to browse through it. Or do a search for "superfetch" "readyboost" and you'll find out a lot of good stuff about Vista.
Click to expand...

oh ok. thanks for that mate. i always thought it was just on the MBP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top