Secret Behind Boot Camp's Name?

[thecoroner]

http://www.pcfastlane.com/joomla/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

Makes sense to me. Why would Apple choose the name "Boot Camp" for a beta unless it had some special meaning?

 

[keeleysam]

That's pure speculation.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Um, he didn't really say anything.

 

[Brazen]

most retarded article ever.

 

[Nothinman]

God that article's dumb, it was a play on the word boot because it lets you dual-boot, nothing more.

 

[xtknight]

With all the customers who love the style and design of Macs, the last thing customers would want is to think of camouflage and guns as they booted up their $2000 Macs! Then again, maybe Apple is planning a new line of Macs in camo colors for use by the army!

LOL!

 

[thecoroner]

I don't consider the article writer to be retarded at all. He's just interpreting things from a different point of view.

Just because the name "Boot Camp" has to do with dual booting doesn't mean it has only one meaning. Things have double meaning all the time.

 

[Nothinman]

And the opposite is just as true. Just because a word can have a certain connotation, that doesn't mean it's what the person using it actually meant.

 

[drag]

Na the guy is nuts.

He is just playing around with other rumors.

Thing is about the win32 api in OS X is that Microsoft and Apple had a special sort of cross licensing agreement. (based on Microsoft's substantial investment in Apple and the pledging of Apple versions of msoffice.) Each of them could look at the other's technology and it lasted 5 years or so. So Apple actually got Win32 apps working natively in OS X. Since the technology share agreement has expired 2002. But Apple still has the legal ability to use what it learned in those few years or whatever, they just can't pull any new stuff out of windows.

It made slashdot. It's a "I, Cringely" from PBS. Take it with a huge grain of salt, other parts of the article he is pretty badly confused. Namely the part about other OSes speed advantages from running a monolythic kernel.. Which is a bit odd since OS X uses a monolythic kernel also (called XNU.. not MACH. It uses code from mach, but it's not the same thing as running a microkernel)

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: thecoroner
I don't consider the article writer to be retarded at all. He's just interpreting things from a different point of view.

I interpreted things from a different point of view too. I figured Apple was going to branch out into the outdoors footwear market. I mean, I sometimes wear boots when I'm camping. I don't consider myself to be retarded at all.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag
Na the guy is nuts.

He is just playing around with other rumors.

Thing is about the win32 api in OS X is that Microsoft and Apple had a special sort of cross licensing agreement. (based on Microsoft's substantial investment in Apple and the pledging of Apple versions of msoffice.) Each of them could look at the other's technology and it lasted 5 years or so. So Apple actually got Win32 apps working natively in OS X. Since the technology share agreement has expired 2002. But Apple still has the legal ability to use what it learned in those few years or whatever, they just can't pull any new stuff out of windows.

It made slashdot. It's a "I, Cringely" from PBS. Take it with a huge grain of salt, other parts of the article he is pretty badly confused. Namely the part about other OSes speed advantages from running a monolythic kernel.. Which is a bit odd since OS X uses a monolythic kernel also (called XNU.. not MACH. It uses code from mach, but it's not the same thing as running a microkernel)

The XNU kernel is both monolithic and micro. :Q It combines MACH 3.0 with the FreeBSD kernel.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: thecoroner
I don't consider the article writer to be retarded at all. He's just interpreting things from a different point of view.

I interpreted things from a different point of view too. I figured Apple was going to branch out into the outdoors footwear market. I mean, I sometimes wear boots when I'm camping. I don't consider myself to be retarded at all.

If Apple was going into the clothing market they would probably go for black turtlenecks.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: thecoroner
I don't consider the article writer to be retarded at all. He's just interpreting things from a different point of view.

I interpreted things from a different point of view too. I figured Apple was going to branch out into the outdoors footwear market. I mean, I sometimes wear boots when I'm camping. I don't consider myself to be retarded at all.

If Apple was going into the clothing market they would probably go for black turtlenecks.

Sweet. Just got to grab me some grey beard colouring and I'll be all set!

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
The XNU kernel is both monolithic and micro. :Q It combines MACH 3.0 with the FreeBSD kernel.

Which one does Linux use?

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Which one does Linux use?

Monolithic.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: xtknight
Which one does Linux use?

Monolithic.

Is that a good thing? And which does Windows XP use?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: xtknight
Which one does Linux use?

Monolithic.

Is that a good thing?

It depends on if you want it to work in the real world or not.

 

[pkme2]

If Apple had done this earlier, like 25+ years ago, it would have been big like Intel.
Their computer proliferation if they shared their code, could have been sizeable today.
But, alas they were too arrogant and snobberish. Their loss, and PCs won.

With MS help in bailing them out previously, was a good thing.
Now with Intel support, "Bootcamp" has Apple smelling the roses. A true reversal of fortunes.
We shall see, we shall see.....

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: thecoroner
I don't consider the article writer to be retarded at all. He's just interpreting things from a different point of view.

Just because the name "Boot Camp" has to do with dual booting doesn't mean it has only one meaning. Things have double meaning all the time.

Did you really read the article? Maybe you should read it again. It is retarded.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: pkme2
If Apple had done this earlier, like 25+ years ago, it would have been big like Intel.
Their computer proliferation if they shared their code, could have been sizeable today.
But, alas they were too arrogant and snobberish. Their loss, and PCs won.

With MS help in bailing them out previously, was a good thing.
Now with Intel support, "Bootcamp" has Apple smelling the roses. A true reversal of fortunes.
We shall see, we shall see.....

WTF are you talking about?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: drag
Na the guy is nuts.

He is just playing around with other rumors.

Thing is about the win32 api in OS X is that Microsoft and Apple had a special sort of cross licensing agreement. (based on Microsoft's substantial investment in Apple and the pledging of Apple versions of msoffice.) Each of them could look at the other's technology and it lasted 5 years or so. So Apple actually got Win32 apps working natively in OS X. Since the technology share agreement has expired 2002. But Apple still has the legal ability to use what it learned in those few years or whatever, they just can't pull any new stuff out of windows.

It made slashdot. It's a "I, Cringely" from PBS. Take it with a huge grain of salt, other parts of the article he is pretty badly confused. Namely the part about other OSes speed advantages from running a monolythic kernel.. Which is a bit odd since OS X uses a monolythic kernel also (called XNU.. not MACH. It uses code from mach, but it's not the same thing as running a microkernel)

The XNU kernel is both monolithic and micro. :Q It combines MACH 3.0 with the FreeBSD kernel.

Sort of.

By definition a Microkernel is only concerned with message passing. All the other things that would normally be in a kernel are in userspace and the microkernel manages these things by passing information between these various userland services.

The XNU kernel doesn't do this.

All the various services, the BSD portions, the memory management, the POSIX-compatability, the file system drivers, the BSD VFS stuff, TCP/IP protocol stack etc etc etc. That's all in-kernel and running in kernel memory space. So it's a Monolythic kernel that uses code from a old Microkernel and FreeBSD

It's probably a good thing that Apple doesn't use Mach as a microkernel seeing how Mach halted all development in 1994.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/mach/public/www/status.html

 

[erikistired]

he's on the right track with the wrong conclusion. it's a training camp to turn mindless windows users into mindless os x users. joe dirt buys a new macbook pro thinking "i can run windows on it but look cool!" and then he installs windows but starts using os x. he realizes os x is much better, then eventually removes windows xp from the machine and boom, another os x user. in a few years apple takes over the globe. cue apple fanboi accusations and music.

exit stage left.

 

[ForumMaster]

:thumbsdown:
that was stupid.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: drag
Na the guy is nuts.

He is just playing around with other rumors.

Thing is about the win32 api in OS X is that Microsoft and Apple had a special sort of cross licensing agreement. (based on Microsoft's substantial investment in Apple and the pledging of Apple versions of msoffice.) Each of them could look at the other's technology and it lasted 5 years or so. So Apple actually got Win32 apps working natively in OS X. Since the technology share agreement has expired 2002. But Apple still has the legal ability to use what it learned in those few years or whatever, they just can't pull any new stuff out of windows.

It made slashdot. It's a "I, Cringely" from PBS. Take it with a huge grain of salt, other parts of the article he is pretty badly confused. Namely the part about other OSes speed advantages from running a monolythic kernel.. Which is a bit odd since OS X uses a monolythic kernel also (called XNU.. not MACH. It uses code from mach, but it's not the same thing as running a microkernel)

The XNU kernel is both monolithic and micro. :Q It combines MACH 3.0 with the FreeBSD kernel.

Sort of.

By definition a Microkernel is only concerned with message passing. All the other things that would normally be in a kernel are in userspace and the microkernel manages these things by passing information between these various userland services.

The XNU kernel doesn't do this.

All the various services, the BSD portions, the memory management, the POSIX-compatability, the file system drivers, the BSD VFS stuff, TCP/IP protocol stack etc etc etc. That's all in-kernel and running in kernel memory space. So it's a Monolythic kernel that uses code from a old Microkernel and FreeBSD

It's probably a good thing that Apple doesn't use Mach as a microkernel seeing how Mach halted all development in 1994.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/mach/public/www/status.html

But they do use MACH. MACH 3.0 in fact. They have (not necessarily 3.0 mind you) since Mac OS X was called NeXTstep.

 

[bsobel]

"After all, since when do software companies name betas after the military? I've yet to see a beta called ?D-Day?, ?Mail Call?, ?Sherman?, or ?Tomahawk?! "

Made me laugh, Tomahawk (as was Apache and some others) was a code name for Norton Utilities versions years ago