Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #50769 > unrolled thread

Boot Camp "nonstandard"

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Boot Camp "nonstandard" Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-26 11:18 -0400
    Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-26 11:54 -0400
      Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-26 12:11 -0400
        Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-26 12:22 -0400
      Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-26 16:12 +0000
        Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-26 12:27 -0400
          Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-27 12:49 +1300
      Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-26 11:02 -0700
        Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-26 19:01 -0400
    Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-26 12:15 -0400
    Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-26 14:28 -0400
      Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" claudel@sonic.net (Claude V. Lucas) - 2013-10-26 18:46 +0000
        Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-26 12:05 -0700
          Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-26 15:49 -0400
            Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-26 19:58 -0400
              Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-26 20:38 -0400
                Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-26 21:05 -0400
                  Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-27 00:02 -0400
                Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-26 23:03 -0400
                  Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-26 22:09 -0500
                    Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-26 23:13 -0400
                      Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-27 07:25 -0500
              Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-27 13:55 +1300
                Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-26 21:08 -0400
                  Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-27 14:31 +1300
                  Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-27 18:09 +1300
                Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-27 14:34 +1300
                  Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-27 18:13 +1300
      And they say APPLE was fading (was: Boot Camp "nonstandard") Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-26 16:07 -0400
        Re: And they say APPLE was fading (was: Boot Camp "nonstandard") Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-26 21:14 +0000
          Re: And they say APPLE was fading (was: Boot Camp "nonstandard") nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-26 20:21 -0400
          Re: And they say APPLE was fading Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-26 20:40 -0400
            Re: And they say APPLE was fading Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-10-28 13:02 -0700
        Re: And they say APPLE was fading Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-26 20:02 -0400
          Re: And they say APPLE was fading Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-26 20:49 -0400
          Re: And they say APPLE was fading jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-27 13:55 +1300
    Re: Boot Camp "nonstandard" jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-27 09:26 +1300

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#50862

Alan Browne:
> >>> Yes.  And the easiest path (which might involve a few sheckles) is a
> >>> virtualizer that actually works.  Bootcamp is s**t.

Davoud:
> > God speaks. Full of s**t, as usual. Boot Camp is just a HD partition.
> > What's not to work? I've used it on two Macs from day 1, first Win XP
> > Pro, then Win 7 Pro. Operationally indistinguishable from any garden
> > variety Windows-only machine, faster and more versatile than
> > virtualization.

Lloyd  E Parsons:
> I tried to set up Boot Camp today on my MBP w/Retina and SSD.  it 
> wouldn't work, complaining about backing up and repartition the drive 
> to a single partition.  But that is the way it is now.

As always, YMMV. I had no difficulty installing Win 7 Pro under Boot
Camp on this MBP/Retina/SSD. Go figure.

> So I got to thinking.  I never use the Windows stuff unless I am at 
> home and I have a perfectly good Acer i3 laptop.  MS's Remote Desktop 
> gives me all I need and is very fast on my network.

I would find it most inconvenient to have to use two machines as you
describe, but if that satisfies you, that's great.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50872

On 2013-10-27 03:13:58 +0000, Davoud said:

> Alan Browne:
>>>>> Yes.  And the easiest path (which might involve a few sheckles) is a
>>>>> virtualizer that actually works.  Bootcamp is s**t.
> 
> Davoud:
>>> God speaks. Full of s**t, as usual. Boot Camp is just a HD partition.
>>> What's not to work? I've used it on two Macs from day 1, first Win XP
>>> Pro, then Win 7 Pro. Operationally indistinguishable from any garden
>>> variety Windows-only machine, faster and more versatile than
>>> virtualization.
> 
> Lloyd  E Parsons:
>> I tried to set up Boot Camp today on my MBP w/Retina and SSD.  it
>> wouldn't work, complaining about backing up and repartition the drive
>> to a single partition.  But that is the way it is now.
> 
> As always, YMMV. I had no difficulty installing Win 7 Pro under Boot
> Camp on this MBP/Retina/SSD. Go figure.

I suspect it would work just fine had I wanted to backup and 
repartition, but I chose not to.

> 
>> So I got to thinking.  I never use the Windows stuff unless I am at
>> home and I have a perfectly good Acer i3 laptop.  MS's Remote Desktop
>> gives me all I need and is very fast on my network.
> 
> I would find it most inconvenient to have to use two machines as you
> describe, but if that satisfies you, that's great.

I can understand that.  But I have both machines at my disposal all the 
time and it works great.  Basically making the MBP the single machine I 
physically use.
-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50842

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> Yes.  And the easiest path (which might involve a few sheckles) is a 
> virtualizer that actually works.  Bootcamp is shit.

Boot Camp is limited... and ok, shit too.

Apple never even fixed the graphics drivers they released for WinXP on
my model iMac. After a few minutes to a few hours the graphics switch to
256 colours, as a fallback when the graphics become hopelessly corrupted
due, until Windows is restarted.

Also they offered no way in their WinXP graphics driver for my iMac's
GPU to get rid of overscan or underscan which some monitors
frustratingly have turned on, making everything look fuzzy (why, I could
not tell you. Who would ever want a fuzzy picture on a brand new
monitor???).

I was able, after days of trial and error, to find a combination of ATI
drivers and control panel (one old ATI driver worked, but not it's
associated control panel - that I found from a newer ATI installer) that
would manually install and give me graphics that never corrupted, and
the ability to turn off !@#$ing underscan/overscan.

You better believe I saved that combo to my archives! !@#$ed if I go
through that again! And to this date Apple still hasn't even
acknowledged their own release of the Boot Camp ATI driver for my GPU in
WinXP is bugged and hopelessly limited to the point of uselessness. ATI
blames Apple, and says Apple is the one supporting the driver. Apple
says ATI wrote the driver, so it's their fault. Thank goodness I was
enough of a geek and stubborn enough to spend days trying manually
installs of old ATI drivers for similar cards.

You suck (in this instance) Apple!!! Ahem. What was I saying earlier?

Oh yeah, Boot Camp may be crappy. But it can - usually with less hassle
than I experienced - be made to work, and there is no doubt dual booting
into Windows is much better for graphics intensive apps, and RAM
intensive ones if your Mac has less RAM that you'd like to share between
OS X and Windows in virtualisation.

You solve a lot of problems by running Boot Camp as soon as you get a
new Mac or reinstall OS X on a Mac. Boot Camp run later sometimes fails
to create the NTFS partition because it can't move the Mac partition
around, IME. Only completely reformatting the HD and re-installing OS X
then running Boot Camp solved that issue for me, and it's happened
several times on different Macs.

It's a shitty piece of software with some shitty to non-existent
support, but Boot Camp is still worth it IMO. Though boy do I wish a
third party would make a better Boot Camp. But that's unlikely to happen
as only a small percentage of Mac users actually dual boot into Windows.

-- 
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the
subject."
 - Sir Winston Churchill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50845

On 2013.10.26, 20:55 , Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Yes.  And the easiest path (which might involve a few sheckles) is a
>> virtualizer that actually works.  Bootcamp is shit.

> It's a shitty piece of software with some shitty to non-existent
> support, but Boot Camp is still worth it IMO. Though boy do I wish a
> third party would make a better Boot Camp. But that's unlikely to happen
> as only a small percentage of Mac users actually dual boot into Windows.

A lot of people I know use either Fusion or Parallels due to work. 
There are a lot of people who do it - just not the pre-intel Mac crowd, 
I guess.



-- 
"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another."
                                                 -Ambrose Bierce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50851

In article <zZmdnYZFQMoV-vHPnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2013.10.26, 20:55 , Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes.  And the easiest path (which might involve a few sheckles) is a
> >> virtualizer that actually works.  Bootcamp is shit.
> 
> > It's a shitty piece of software with some shitty to non-existent
> > support, but Boot Camp is still worth it IMO. Though boy do I wish a
> > third party would make a better Boot Camp. But that's unlikely to happen
> > as only a small percentage of Mac users actually dual boot into Windows.
> 
> A lot of people I know use either Fusion or Parallels due to work. 
> There are a lot of people who do it - just not the pre-intel Mac crowd, 
> I guess.

Some poeple use Boot Camp to play Windows games.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50868

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2013.10.26, 20:55 , Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes.  And the easiest path (which might involve a few sheckles) is a
> >> virtualizer that actually works.  Bootcamp is shit.
> 
> > It's a shitty piece of software with some shitty to non-existent
> > support, but Boot Camp is still worth it IMO. Though boy do I wish a
> > third party would make a better Boot Camp. But that's unlikely to happen
> > as only a small percentage of Mac users actually dual boot into Windows.
> 
> A lot of people I know use either Fusion or Parallels due to work. 
> There are a lot of people who do it - just not the pre-intel Mac crowd,
> I guess.

Yeah for non-gaming or non-heavy lifting apps virtualisation is the way
to go. I'm a Fusion user myself - works great for those times I need
Windows Powerpoint (blerg!), Access or the like.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50852

In article <1lbeisp.lx2axe18rwg9rN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> 
> > Yes.  And the easiest path (which might involve a few sheckles) is a 
> > virtualizer that actually works.  Bootcamp is shit.
> 
> Boot Camp is limited... and ok, shit too.
> 
> Apple never even fixed the graphics drivers they released for WinXP on
> my model iMac.
<snip>

Well there's your problem. You upgrade instally to Mac OS X Mavericks,
and yet are still using ancient Windows XP. You're meant to use
disgusti... err, "fancy" and "wonderful" new Windows 7 and 8.   ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50869

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <1lbeisp.lx2axe18rwg9rN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
> Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> 
> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > > Yes.  And the easiest path (which might involve a few sheckles) is a
> > > virtualizer that actually works.  Bootcamp is shit.
> > 
> > Boot Camp is limited... and ok, shit too.
> > 
> > Apple never even fixed the graphics drivers they released for WinXP on
> > my model iMac.
> <snip>
> 
> Well there's your problem. You upgrade instally to Mac OS X Mavericks,
> and yet are still using ancient Windows XP. You're meant to use
> disgusti... err, "fancy" and "wonderful" new Windows 7 and 8.   ;-)

Huh? I still use OS X 10.6.8 as people have complained I mention
constantly :-D As for WinXP - that's simply because I don't need Win7
for my Windows gaming. I do however like Win7 a lot and use and support
it on other computers a bunch. I loath Win8 though. Even fully updated
Vista is 100x times better that Win8.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50795 — And they say APPLE was fading (was: Boot Camp "nonstandard")

On 10-26-2013, 14:28, Wes Groleau wrote:
> Well, it seems that (1) installing BC on this thing has Murphy trying
> hard to help, and (2) I'd still have to acquire the XP drivers from
> somewhere and add them separately.
>
> So, I allowed VirtualBox to use the Windows partition for its virtual
> drive and am now installing XP that way.

Entered the product key from her purchased Win XP Pro, and "The CD key 
you entered is not valid"  Called Microsoft.

There was a time that (although I could tell that some were Indian and 
some Chinese) the phone-answerers spoke pretty good English.  Not any 
more.  Both this guy and the supervisor I talked to later were nearly 
incomprehensible.

And there was a time when Microsoft phone-answerers seemed to actually 
know something.  Not any more.  Working from a set of notes he doesn't 
really understand.

Had to explain three times that a system _being_installed_ cannot get on 
the internet.

Then had to explain twice that he cannot remote control a machine that 
is _being_installed_ and is not on the internet.

And then he asked me if I had any other computers.  I told him that I 
had a Mac and an iPad.  He wanted to remote control one of those. Again 
I had to explain that (1) he is not able to remote control either one of 
them (he could, but not with the tools Microsoft gives him) and (2) that 
remote controlling one computer will not enable him to poke around on a 
different computer that is being installed.

Finally he transferred me to a supervisor.  This fellow needed the same 
education, but he got it the first time around.  His conclusion: I have 
to take the CD and the computer to the store where Mary bought the CD. 
Unfortunately (I suspect) that is in another state.

I'll ask Mary to show me the CD--I don't think she's lying about it 
being legit, but I'd like to actually see it before I "get 'er done" 
some geeky way.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Nutrition for Blokes: Re-engineering your diet for life
   http://www.phlaunt.com/quentin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50804 — Re: And they say APPLE was fading (was: Boot Camp "nonstandard")

In message <l4h7d6$g4c$1@dont-email.me> 
  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 10-26-2013, 14:28, Wes Groleau wrote:
>> Well, it seems that (1) installing BC on this thing has Murphy trying
>> hard to help, and (2) I'd still have to acquire the XP drivers from
>> somewhere and add them separately.
>>
>> So, I allowed VirtualBox to use the Windows partition for its virtual
>> drive and am now installing XP that way.

> Entered the product key from her purchased Win XP Pro, and "The CD key 
> you entered is not valid"  Called Microsoft.

Find a code on the Internet for XP.

Here. I spent 11 seconds on Google:

Windows XP Professional Serial Key Number:
S/N: WDGQX-WC2Y3-4R966-TK3H3-HXRB8
PXV3X-T8MP7-D3XFW-2327C-VPDQ8
BBY46-G888F-PKWW6-X4CVD-CGF43
QG4B8-96M7K-QB8PY-WH42C-KP6XJ
J2C8K-83GRM-269TM-RHW43-P7CDQ
JMD9T-8C93Q-MDPKT-X9HJX-B64RJ
F6HQW-Q3799-9CJXR-9P3YD-6CJJ6
DPDQK-H94J9-TWMTR-K2K69-FRKHM

Windows XP  Home Edition Serial Key Number :
S/N: V7BWD-G9YR6-9FG87-8Q2HV-YJGTG

Windows XP Home Edition Original Serial number:
S/N: G7BR9-8QV29-3QFHP-F84WG-X9PYQ

WINDOWS XP HOME EDITION Original serial number
S/N: 55372-OEM-0011903-00148

Windows XP Original Serial Key Number :
S/N: 216601-009505-171906-713385-887224-774934-591725-010425

Windows XP Professional Original serial Key number:
S/N: M8DPF-XT324-YBKK9-3VF8C-M2X78

Windows xp Professional 2002 Original Serial Key number:
S/N: 55214-643-6215176-23079

WINDOWS XP Profesional SP2 Spanish Serial number:
S/N: RHKG3-8YW4W-4RHJG-83M4Y-7X9GW 

MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP PRO - CORP  Original Serial number:
S/N: TGRH7-K6QR3-RT6J4-V36FP-869HT 
RYB3M-46BYP-C6YKF-P8J7W-XPKYW
RV63Y-TR649-WWJ7R-9Y8KV-PVVKJ
VPFCF-X3HP9-C69WX-4XM23-JPXPG
RBBPB-VBWYP-R87JB-MBQ4T-8GP96
Q8CWH-73232-WV7J3-Y2YRY-64B68
WM88F-2KP6H-324MQ-D3R9R-FF36W
KD399-6T6JT-7XT3M-VYY68-K77Y6



-- 
BEWITCHED DOES NOT PROMOTE SATANISM Bart chalkboard Ep. 2F17

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50827 — Re: And they say APPLE was fading (was: Boot Camp "nonstandard")

In article <slrnl6oc58.6de.g.kreme@jaka.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> Find a code on the Internet for XP.
> 
> Here. I spent 11 seconds on Google:

and broke the law. we can see where your ethics are.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50836 — Re: And they say APPLE was fading

On 10-26-2013, 17:14, Lewis wrote:
> Find a code on the Internet for XP.

That's one of the things I referred to with "before I 'get 'er done' 
some geeky way."

Another is to use the product key I got with my MSDN subscription.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    “A man with an experience is never
     at the mercy of a man with an argument.”
                       — Ron Allen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51091 — Re: And they say APPLE was fading

In article <l4hnec$55c$2@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 10-26-2013, 17:14, Lewis wrote:
> > Find a code on the Internet for XP.
> 
> That's one of the things I referred to with "before I 'get 'er done' 
> some geeky way."
> 
> Another is to use the product key I got with my MSDN subscription.

I had pretty much the same problem registering Windows XP (using Fusion
on a MacPro) and went through the phone procedure. It worked.

-- 
Jim Gibson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50822 — Re: And they say APPLE was fading

On 2013.10.26, 16:07 , Wes Groleau wrote:

> I'll ask Mary to show me the CD--I don't think she's lying about it
> being legit, but I'd like to actually see it before I "get 'er done"
> some geeky way.

In my case installing WinXP actually depends on having a Win-98 CD as 
well.  ie: I install the WinXP and it asks to see the Win98 disk to 
prove that my "upgrade" from 98 to XP is valid.

Worse part is when installing WinXP under Fusion the first time I 
discovered that I had thrown the Win-98 disk in my trash basket.  It, in 
my home office garbage, did not need emptying too often and I 
"recovered" it.

-- 
"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another."
                                                 -Ambrose Bierce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50838 — Re: And they say APPLE was fading

On 10-26-2013, 20:02, Alan Browne wrote:
> In my case installing WinXP actually depends on having a Win-98 CD as
> well.  ie: I install the WinXP and it asks to see the Win98 disk to
> prove that my "upgrade" from 98 to XP is valid.

In my case. I am installing with a generic CD I acquired legitimately 
for other purposes.  Since replacing Mary's computer is not one of those 
purposes, I figured that using her key from the O.S. (bought for her old 
machine but never installed) would legitimize it.

Interestingly, something very similar happened the last time I tried to 
REPAIR XP on a laptop that had corrupted a few files.  That time, the 
alleged repair process trashed everything, then in re-install with the 
original CD (seemed to be the original anyway) CD, the product key on 
the COA sticker under the laptop was rejected.  That time the Microsoft 
guy just created and read to me a new product key over the phone.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    “A man with an experience is never
     at the mercy of a man with an argument.”
                       — Ron Allen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50841 — Re: And they say APPLE was fading

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2013.10.26, 16:07 , Wes Groleau wrote:
> 
> > I'll ask Mary to show me the CD--I don't think she's lying about it
> > being legit, but I'd like to actually see it before I "get 'er done"
> > some geeky way.
> 
> In my case installing WinXP actually depends on having a Win-98 CD as
> well.  ie: I install the WinXP and it asks to see the Win98 disk to 
> prove that my "upgrade" from 98 to XP is valid.
> 
> Worse part is when installing WinXP under Fusion the first time I 
> discovered that I had thrown the Win-98 disk in my trash basket.  It, in
> my home office garbage, did not need emptying too often and I 
> "recovered" it.

Yeah, that happened to me too with my WinXP upgrade DVD, only I'd lost
my Win98 CD a couple year's before. Luckily a simple burned copy of a
workmate's Win98 CD sufficed. You could also use an image from The
Pirate Bay or elsewhere.

Anyway - I never throw away software (I'd lost my copy of Win98 by
'loaning' it to a 'friend'). You never know when it may come in handy!
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50798

IME with Boot Camp it's best to simply install OS X to a non-partitioned
HFS+ formatted HD, run Boot Camp, letting OS X and Boot Camp create
additional necessary partitions. Yes, you will need a WinXP install disc
at some stage.

Boot Camp - at least OS X 10.6.8's version - is highly inflexible :-( It
wants to work one way, and only that way. Best to just let it.

-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web